A good read - Black Tape and other interesting bits

[BlueCrab]

capps,

I agree 100% with you. I think the problem is not that these items may be missing, but that nobody can demonstrate that they existed in the first place, since as you suggest they may have been sourced in an ad-hoc manner from the domestic surroundings?

.

UKGuy,

The missing items of evidence from the crime scene existed.

The cops searched everywhere in that house, including between walls and in the sewer piping. The items are gone and the only practical way they could have left the house is if someone carried them out. That someone was likely let into the house that night by a Ramsey and he is probably the killer.

For instance, the five-inch-long piece of duct tape had to have been taken from a roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape. A separate piece of duct tape five inches long can't be transported without it getting entangled on itself and becoming useless. Once entangled on itself it can't be pulled apart because of its intense stickiness. Therefore, the tape had to have been removed from a roll. And since there was not even one piece of duct tape like that used elsewhere in the house, it strongly suggests the roll had been brought into the house that night by the killer and taken back out by the killer. The tape had been manufactured just four to six weeks earlier at the Shurtape plant in North Carolina so it's unlikely it had been an old piece of tape from the Ramsey house.

The same applies to the missing roll of Stansport brand white nylon cord, the missing tip of the paint brush handle, the missing stun gun, the missing size 6 panties, the missing nine pages from the notepad, and the missing red ink pen.

IMO there was a fifth person in the house that night, let in by a Ramsey, and the missing crime scene items left the house with him as he walked out in the wee hours of the morning. The Ramseys know who he is but are covering it up because it was a Ramsey who let him into the house.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

The missing items of evidence from the crime scene existed.

The cops searched everywhere in that house, including between walls and in the sewer piping. The items are gone and the only practical way they could have left the house is if someone carried them out. That someone was likely let into the house that night by a Ramsey and he is probably the killer.

For instance, the five-inch-long piece of duct tape had to have been taken from a roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape. A separate piece of duct tape five inches long can't be transported without it getting entangled on itself and becoming useless. Once entangled on itself it can't be pulled apart because of its intense stickiness. Therefore, the tape had to have been removed from a roll. And since there was not even one piece of duct tape like that used elsewhere in the house, it strongly suggests the roll had been brought into the house that night by the killer and taken back out by the killer. The tape had been manufactured just four to six weeks earlier at the Shurtape plant in North Carolina so it's unlikely it had been an old piece of tape from the Ramsey house.

The same applies to the missing roll of Stansport brand white nylon cord, the missing tip of the paint brush handle, the missing stun gun, the missing size 6 panties, the missing nine pages from the notepad, and the missing red ink pen.

IMO there was a fifth person in the house that night, let in by a Ramsey, and the missing crime scene items left the house with him as he walked out in the wee hours of the morning. The Ramseys know who he is but are covering it up because it was a Ramsey who let him into the house.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

There is nothing to demonstrate that either the tape or the cord were sourced from a roll either brought into the house for the purpose or as part of the domestic hardware.

When they were manufactured or purchased is irrelevant since we do not know the identity of the purchaser. This could be anyone from a family aquaintance, friend, work-colleague workman, etc. And a strip of just that length may have been used anywhere to tape the boiler, to stop the freezer door from swinging open etc etc.

The stun gun I will pass on, its status is speculative, the missing size-6 underwear may have been washed out for all we know, PR made sure she informed us she did some washing that morning, or torn up and used as a rag.

The missing 9-pages are simple to remove, just shred them, liquify them and flush down the toilet. You could even burn them indoors.

The missing red ink pen I cannot account for, but then when you consider all the Ramsey stuff that was allowed to be removed, any of the above could have been also secreted away inside some container object then destroyed.

What did BR leave with when he was escorted away by FW?

I dont think there is enough forensic evidence to support any inference that there was a fifth person in the house that night.

Thats the problem, citing an absence of evidence is not proof of its prior existence!

And its not any old evidence some of it was used to fake a homicide crime-scene, so its use in subsequent theories may be wholly speculative.

I'm not saying there was no fifth person, just that imo the evidence is not hard enough, lets put it this way, I consider those 4-red acrylic fibers found on the tape, to be more persuasive.


.

 

[narlacat]

<<What did BR leave with when he was escorted away by FW?>>

Burke left with his most prized possession, his Nintendo.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab,

There is nothing to demonstrate that either the tape or the cord were sourced from a roll either brought into the house for the purpose or as part of the domestic hardware.

UKGuy,

I just explained to you why the short piece of duct tape had to have come directly off a roll of duct tape. It's nearly impossible to transport a five-inch-length of duct tape without it being on the roll. Duct tape, immediately after tearing it or cutting it from the roll, begins to curl and attach itself to itself. Once attached to itself it cannot be pulled apart and has to be discarded. And since the manufacturer of the Shurtape brand of duct tape had analyzed it and determined that it had been manufactured just four to six weeks prior to the murder, it's doubtful it had been pulled off of something in the house and re-applied to JonBenet's mouth.

IMO there had to have been a roll of duct tape in the house that night, and it's missing. There had to have been a fifth person in the house that night.

BlueCrab

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

I just explained to you why the short piece of duct tape had to have come directly off a roll of duct tape. It's nearly impossible to transport a five-inch-length of duct tape without it being on the roll. Duct tape, immediately after tearing it or cutting it from the roll, begins to curl and attach itself to itself. Once attached to itself it cannot be pulled apart and has to be discarded. And since the manufacturer of the Shurtape brand of duct tape had analyzed it and determined that it had been manufactured just four to six weeks prior to the murder, it's doubtful it had been pulled off of something in the house and re-applied to JonBenet's mouth.

IMO there had to have been a roll of duct tape in the house that night, and it's missing. There had to have been a fifth person in the house that night.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

You may be correct, but I would dispute your description of how the duct tape cannot be transported once cut from the roll.

I have seen other people doing this and have done it myself, cutting a strip to carry to another location, but longer than required, and to do this you just roll it up into a mini roll! It just unfurls at the oother end.

It may be doubtful that it was pulled of something else in the house but we do not know!

If the tape was lets say 3-weeks old, from purchase, why was there no other pieces in the house?

Was it used just this once as in a premeditated homicide as part of a murder kit?

And why remove the remaining roll of tape, what the percentage in that, the piece left behind on her mouth, is as good as any other piece from the remainder of the roll, that is for forensic analysis purposes. So why remove it?


.

 

[aussiesheila]

UKGuy,

The missing items of evidence from the crime scene existed.

The cops searched everywhere in that house, including between walls and in the sewer piping. The items are gone and the only practical way they could have left the house is if someone carried them out. That someone was likely let into the house that night by a Ramsey and he is probably the killer.

For instance, the five-inch-long piece of duct tape had to have been taken from a roll of Shurtape brand black duct tape. A separate piece of duct tape five inches long can't be transported without it getting entangled on itself and becoming useless. Once entangled on itself it can't be pulled apart because of its intense stickiness. Therefore, the tape had to have been removed from a roll. And since there was not even one piece of duct tape like that used elsewhere in the house, it strongly suggests the roll had been brought into the house that night by the killer and taken back out by the killer. The tape had been manufactured just four to six weeks earlier at the Shurtape plant in North Carolina so it's unlikely it had been an old piece of tape from the Ramsey house.

The same applies to the missing roll of Stansport brand white nylon cord, the missing tip of the paint brush handle, the missing stun gun, the missing size 6 panties, the missing nine pages from the notepad, and the missing red ink pen.

IMO there was a fifth person in the house that night, let in by a Ramsey, and the missing crime scene items left the house with him as he walked out in the wee hours of the morning. The Ramseys know who he is but are covering it up because it was a Ramsey who let him into the house.

BlueCrab

How do you know there is a pair of size 6 panties missing? For all you know JonBenet could have put the size 12 panties on herself before leaving for the party at the Whites and left a soiled pair of size 6 in her bedroom or bathroom.

 

[BlueCrab]

How do you know there is a pair of size 6 panties missing? For all you know JonBenet could have put the size 12 panties on herself before leaving for the party at the Whites and left a soiled pair of size 6 in her bedroom or bathroom.

aussieshiela,

JonBenet's size six underwear are missing because size six is what she wore. The cops took 15 pairs of size six and size four underwear from JonBenet's panty drawer in the bathroom -- no size 12-14. Size 12-14 are for a girl twice the size of JonBenet and would have bunched up and shown through the tight black velvet slacks she was wearing that night.

Those size 12-14 panties were obviously put on JonBenet post-mortem by someone who didn't know what they were doing and didn't know her underwear were kept in the bathroom. The 12-14's were the only ones he could find in her bedroom.

The size six panties she had been wearing are missing, most likely because the perp assumed incriminating forensic evidence from him was on them.

BlueCrab

 

[tipper]

aussieshiela,

JonBenet's size six underwear are missing because size six is what she wore. The cops took 15 pairs of size six and size four underwear from JonBenet's panty drawer in the bathroom -- no size 12-14. Size 12-14 are for a girl twice the size of JonBenet and would have bunched up and shown through the tight black velvet slacks she was wearing that night.

Those size 12-14 panties were obviously put on JonBenet post-mortem by someone who didn't know what they were doing and didn't know her underwear were kept in the bathroom. The 12-14's were the only ones he could find in her bedroom.

The size six panties she had been wearing are missing, most likely because the perp assumed incriminating forensic evidence from him was on them.

BlueCrab

Why replace them at all? She's already dead, why not just cut the incriminating underwear off with the knife and take them away? It's not like, aside from the molestation, everything is fine and nobody will notice one pair of underpants vs another.

 

[ellen13]

Why replace them at all? She's already dead, why not just cut the incriminating underwear off with the knife and take them away? It's not like, aside from the molestation, everything is fine and nobody will notice one pair of underpants vs another.

That's a good point, unless they were trying to cover up the molestation
and the missing underwear would bring more attention to that.

 

[UKGuy]

Why replace them at all? She's already dead, why not just cut the incriminating underwear off with the knife and take them away? It's not like, aside from the molestation, everything is fine and nobody will notice one pair of underpants vs another.

tipper,

Your question goes to the heart as to why the wine-cellar is a staged crime-scene, and not that of some sociopathic pedophile, who does not care about JonBenet's disposition after death.

But if you are staging a crime-scene and you wish to confer some degree of normality upon it, then some aspects should appear conventional, and for some unknown reason, we can speculate, whomever re-dressed JonBenet decided day-of-the-week Wednesday underwear was required, so the size-12'ss were fished out. She had a drawer full of size-6's available.

So her re-dresser, subjectively was paying attention to detail, and I am still none the wiser if it was regular practise for JonBenet to wear underwear to bed, given she was prone to bed-wetting.

Knowing the answer to this will determine the motivation and partially the purpose behind her re-dressing?

.

 

[sandraladeda]

Why replace them at all? She's already dead, why not just cut the incriminating underwear off with the knife and take them away? It's not like, aside from the molestation, everything is fine and nobody will notice one pair of underpants vs another.

I don't think an anonymous molester-intruder would replace them. Why would they waste the time? What does it gain?

imo

 

[aussiesheila]

aussieshiela,

JonBenet's size six underwear are missing because size six is what she wore. The cops took 15 pairs of size six and size four underwear from JonBenet's panty drawer in the bathroom -- no size 12-14. Size 12-14 are for a girl twice the size of JonBenet and would have bunched up and shown through the tight black velvet slacks she was wearing that night.

Those size 12-14 panties were obviously put on JonBenet post-mortem by someone who didn't know what they were doing and didn't know her underwear were kept in the bathroom. The 12-14's were the only ones he could find in her bedroom.

The size six panties she had been wearing are missing, most likely because the perp assumed incriminating forensic evidence from him was on them.

BlueCrab

Yes BlueCrab, I know she normally wore size 6 panties but I have suggested in another post somewhere that it is possible that JonBenet put the pair of size 12-14 panties on herself just after she had that fight with Patsy in her bathroom about what to wear to the White's party. I suggested she might have gone to her bedroom to get away from Patsy who apparently was in a furious rage. I have suggested that as JonBenet was getting dressed in her bedroom she realised the panties she had on were stained, and rather than go back to her bathroom and get screamed at again by Patsy, she got some clean panties from the packet of size 12 that were in her bedroom cupboard.

And I'm not so sure that the size 12-14 panties would have shown up that much under her tight black velvet slacks. Modern day panties are not that bulky, you know.

And how can you be so sure the size 6 panties she was presumably wearing earlier have gone missing? How do you know for sure there were no soiled size 6 panties lying around the house somewhere? If JonBenet had in fact done what I have suggested she might very well have stuffed the dirty ones in the bottom of her toy drawer or some such hiding place or even just dumped them on the floor of her bedroom.

 

[Camper]

Yes BlueCrab, I know she normally wore size 6 panties but I have suggested in another post somewhere that it is possible that JonBenet put the pair of size 12-14 panties on herself just after she had that fight with Patsy in her bathroom about what to wear to the White's party. I suggested she might have gone to her bedroom to get away from Patsy who apparently was in a furious rage. I have suggested that as JonBenet was getting dressed in her bedroom she realised the panties she had on were stained, and rather than go back to her bathroom and get screamed at again by Patsy, she got some clean panties from the packet of size 12 that were in her bedroom cupboard.

And I'm not so sure that the size 12-14 panties would have shown up that much under her tight black velvet slacks. Modern day panties are not that bulky, you know.

And how can you be so sure the size 6 panties she was presumably wearing earlier have gone missing? How do you know for sure there were no soiled size 6 panties lying around the house somewhere? If JonBenet had in fact done what I have suggested she might very well have stuffed the dirty ones in the bottom of her toy drawer or some such hiding place or even just dumped them on the floor of her bedroom.

------------>>>Aussiesheila, yes I agree with your post. Christmas night before the White's party PR and this tiny child had already had 'clothing issue problems'. IF as we are led to believe the argument was about what sweater top to wear, PR may indeed not have known WHICH underpants JonBenet already had on OR that she put on after the argument. WE do no know what or where JonBenet was, when the clothing issues came up do WE? Additionally WE do not know WHAT JonBenet already had on when the clothing issues came up, do WE?

PR said she did not know if JonBenet had a bath on Christmas day.

Help me out here if I have mis remembered.



.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

What about urine stains on the size 12 panties? I believe the long johns she was found in were found to have dried urine on them. If the panties were also found to have a urine stain, I would tend to believe she was wearing them prior to her death and was re-dressed in them. That doesn't mean she wore them to the White's though. Perhaps when they got home JonBenet didn't make it to the bathroom and put those on as a clean pair to sleep in, and was then awakened by her killer. Perhaps she was awake when they came home, and had soiled her panties, and a Ramsey gave her the larger size undies as a "it's late, put these on and go to sleep" solution.

I also tend to think that size 12 panties on a six year old girl would definitely have caused some visible bunching under tight velvet slacks, tight being the key word. Just go put on a pair of undies twice the size you normally wear and then slip on some tight velvet pants and see if it makes a nice smooth surface or if there is some gathering of material. I suspect the most obvious place the extra material in such oversized undies would have appeared would be right around the waistline. As you slide your pants up, it pulls the extra material tight across your butt, but it gathers up and sticks out right around the waistline.

 

[BlueCrab]

Let's face it. Every point brought up in any discussion can be rebutted with a counterpoint. But sooner or later common sense has to prevail and a decision made based on facts.

The hard fact we're dealing with here is that little 45-pound JonBenet was wearing size 12-14 panties, a size way too big for her. And the only sizes in JonBenet's underwear drawer were 4's and 6's.

Common sense should tell us she didn't put those size 12-14's on herself. Either the killer or someone staging the crime scene put the clean underwear on her after wiping her down (leaving numerous dark fibers on the inner thighs and folds of the labia). The goal appears to be an attempt to cover up the sexual aspects of the crime and to clean away incriminating forensic evidence.


IOW, JonBenet's size 6 underwear she wore to the White's dinner party are missing.

BlueCrab

 

[Camper]

Let's face it. Every point brought up in any discussion can be rebutted with a counterpoint. But sooner or later common sense has to prevail and a decision made based on facts.

The hard fact we're dealing with here is that little 45-pound JonBenet was wearing size 12-14 panties, a size way too big for her. And the only sizes in JonBenet's underwear drawer were 4's and 6's.

Common sense should tell us she didn't put those size 12-14's on herself. Either the killer or someone staging the crime scene put the clean underwear on her after wiping her down (leaving numerous dark fibers on the inner thighs and folds of the labia). The goal appears to be an attempt to cover up the sexual aspects of the crime and to clean away incriminating forensic evidence.


IOW, JonBenet's size 6 underwear she wore to the White's dinner party are missing.

BlueCrab

------------>>>BC, you know that I love common sense, not everyone has it in the same amount. Point being that your common sense as a man, and no doubt older that 6 years of age would not be the same common sense that a 45 lb six year old little girls would be.

I stand on her wanting to be a big girl by however means she chose to attain that goal, in her 'mind'.

WE don't know what size panties she wore to the Whites, do WE? If you do know that for a fact, I would like to see a source for that?

Can't win this one with me BC, cuz I once was a six year old little girl.

My contention has always been that the larger panties, would have wrapped around the toilet bowl cover, with her legs dangling and not reaching the floor, plus the constriction of the leggings and velvet pants holding her legs closer together. A must have to do when going to the bathroom with this type of clothing on is to get your underpants out of the way before doing your chore this would have been a tight and difficult task for a six year old to do unassisted.

Even more difficult, IF she had indeed been wearing size six panties.

----------->>>Another point, I was a six year old living through Michigan winters with leggings and a snow suit, plus an out house, my legs did not touch the floor. All of the clothing keeps a little girls legs 'quite' close together and when one is doing ones chore it will squirt and go places on ones cumbersome clothes where 'it' should not be going. Sorry to be so graphic, but grown men do not know these things by experience.

The 'someone' who also knew that JonBenet would never grow up to wear those favored 'big' girl panties either.


.

 

[capps]

Quote by Nuisanceposter:
"Perhaps she was awake when they came home, and had soiled her panties, and a Ramsey gave her the larger size undies as a "it's late, put these on and go to sleep" solution."

Nuisanceposter,

If so,then why wouldn't the Ramsey's just say so,that would have ended the large panty mystery.

 

[trixie]

If Jonbenet dressed herself to go to the Whites dinner she may have put on the size 12 panties AND the longjohns to wear under her pants. The longjohns would keep the panties from slipping down or around and hold them tight to her body because they are made to fit that way. To believe this you would have to discount the story the Ramseys tell about Jonbenet falling asleep in the car and carring JB up to her room and Patsy putting the longjohns on her. I don't believe any of that ever happened because I don't think she ever made it to bed that night. Patsy said she put them on her because she "couldn't put her hands on the pink ones she wore the night before." The PINK ones were laying right on her bed, for all to see. But Patsy has to take credit for putting the longjohns on her to prove her story of JB never waking up that night. I'll bet Patsy was shocked beyond measure when she found out about the size 12 panties. IMO she didn't know because JB put them on and then put on the longjohns and Patsy wasn't involved with her dressing for the Whites so she didn't have a clue WHAT she was wearing under there.

Bluecrab you do not know if the police have the size 6 panties in evidence or not. We do not know all of the evidence. Nobody who has gone public, Steve Thomas, Lou Smit, has given up ALL the evidence. There are still many things we don't know. The panties are one of them. If you find out differently please let us know and it will substantiate your claim.

 

[aussiesheila]

What about urine stains on the size 12 panties? I believe the long johns she was found in were found to have dried urine on them. If the panties were also found to have a urine stain, I would tend to believe she was wearing them prior to her death and was re-dressed in them. That doesn't mean she wore them to the White's though. Perhaps when they got home JonBenet didn't make it to the bathroom and put those on as a clean pair to sleep in, and was then awakened by her killer. Perhaps she was awake when they came home, and had soiled her panties, and a Ramsey gave her the larger size undies as a "it's late, put these on and go to sleep" solution.

I also tend to think that size 12 panties on a six year old girl would definitely have caused some visible bunching under tight velvet slacks, tight being the key word. Just go put on a pair of undies twice the size you normally wear and then slip on some tight velvet pants and see if it makes a nice smooth surface or if there is some gathering of material. I suspect the most obvious place the extra material in such oversized undies would have appeared would be right around the waistline. As you slide your pants up, it pulls the extra material tight across your butt, but it gathers up and sticks out right around the waistline.

I think that JonBenet was wearing size 12 panties and longjohns when she was first taken to the cellar. I think she completely soaked both of them soon after arriving there. Isn't it a fact that a urine stain was found somewhere on the basement carpet?

As far as too-large panties not showing up under tight black velvet slacks, I really don't think they would have shown. Correct size panties will be slightly stretched when worn, that is how they are designed to be. Size 12 are not twice the size of size 6s, and if JonBenet was wearing size 12 I think she would have pulled them up high and simply stretched them upwards so there would have been no bunching - just a somewhat high-waisted, large-leghole, but essentially smooth-fitting pair of panties. Besides that i would think that a pair of velvet pants designed for winter wearing would have been of fairly thick material anyway and inclined to obliterate any lines caused by undergarments even if they were tight.

 

[Eagle1]

There's another thread about panties, where I guess this discussion has gone to, but I've been asking for years and never got an answer,

"Do Colorado or Atlanta or W. Va. artists ever use black duct tape for transporting paintings? In Michigan they don't. For any exhibit, picture WIRE has to be attached by eye screws exactly 2 and 1/2 inches down. Masking tape is used during the painting,just to keep the back clean, and you have a large portfolio, a form of luggage, flat, in which to carry the finished creation, some with the handle located at the bottom so you carry it under your arm. There are metal clips at art supply stores for fastening a canvas into its frame.

It's possible a painting could be too big for a standard portfolio, but PR's were never described as particularly large, and black duct tape still wouldn't likely be useful in any way that I can think of.