Forensic evidence

[JMO8778]

Dru,

Its possible that the real motive behind the killing of JonBenet was sexual!

That is her abuser may actually be her killer, she may have been killed because her abuser flew into a sexual rage and attacked JonBenet, eventually strangling her?

But the person who enacted the staging down in the wine-cellar may be a different person from her abuser, but who was colluding with her abuser in the abuse of JonBenet.

That is both parties have a motive for masking the real circumstances of her death.

If both parties were not implicated, then all bets are off, and one of the pair would be at liberty to accuse the other of murder and abuse, to date this has not occurred.


.

Is it also possible the killer witnessed sexual abuse going on...and stopped it for good,but at the wrong source? ..out of jealousy,growing older,dysfunctional family stress ..(add surviving cancer as well.)
In that case,the abuser would not be the killer.The abuser could have went to bed...and then JB was killed while alone with her killer.
IF JB was killed by more than one person,IMO it was done during the staging,and perhaps the person who caused JB to draw her final breath already thought she was dead? ..debatable,of course.
It's just that I beleive one person lost control,and one person started the ball rolling in the attack.It seems likely that person was alone with JB at that point?Thing is,which one,and for what reason? Sexual rage by one perp,or was it toileting or jealousy rage by the other?
If both parents were involved,I just don't see both of them attacking JB at the same time.IMO one of them lost control,likely without the other parent present(?),and it all started from there.

 

[Solace]

Is it also possible the killer witnessed sexual abuse going on...and stopped it for good,but at the wrong source? ..out of jealousy,growing older,dysfunctional family stress ..(add surviving cancer as well.)
In that case,the abuser would not be the killer.The abuser could have went to bed...and then JB was killed while alone with her killer.
IF JB was killed by more than one person,IMO it was done during the staging,and perhaps the person who caused JB to draw her final breath already thought she was dead? ..debatable,of course.
It's just that I beleive one person lost control,and one person started the ball rolling in the attack.It seems likely that person was alone with JB at that point?Thing is,which one,and for what reason? Sexual rage by one perp,or was it toileting or jealousy rage by the other?
If both parents were involved,I just don't see both of them attacking JB at the same time.IMO one of them lost control,likely without the other parent present(?),and it all started from there.

Question: Did John or Patsy ever say that JonBenet walked into the house that night. I know that Berke did, but I cannot remember if either John or Patsy said that. Also, since Berke did say that and then changed his story, he was told to change it and now I know he knows more than he is saying. So the more you think about this neverending, the more you realize things that are staring you in the face. But back again to my first question. Did either John or Patsy say JonBenet walked into the house?

 

[UKGuy]

Is it also possible the killer witnessed sexual abuse going on...and stopped it for good,but at the wrong source? ..out of jealousy,growing older,dysfunctional family stress ..(add surviving cancer as well.)
In that case,the abuser would not be the killer.The abuser could have went to bed...and then JB was killed while alone with her killer.
IF JB was killed by more than one person,IMO it was done during the staging,and perhaps the person who caused JB to draw her final breath already thought she was dead? ..debatable,of course.
It's just that I beleive one person lost control,and one person started the ball rolling in the attack.It seems likely that person was alone with JB at that point?Thing is,which one,and for what reason? Sexual rage by one perp,or was it toileting or jealousy rage by the other?
If both parents were involved,I just don't see both of them attacking JB at the same time.IMO one of them lost control,likely without the other parent present(?),and it all started from there.

JMO8778,

Is it also possible the killer witnessed sexual abuse going on...and stopped it for good,but at the wrong source? ..out of jealousy,growing older,dysfunctional family stress ..(add surviving cancer as well.)

This is a staple favorite, aka merciful killing which offers a rationale for killing JonBenet, and is a variation on the Toilet Rage theory, this I guess appeals more to one gender than another?

Whilst it cannot be eliminated, imo it is near to close to the bottom of the suspect list, since we know roughly what both parents knew regarding each other prior to JonBenet's death. When questioned about the sexual abuse of JonBenet Patsy was not surprised.

It is one of the possibilities that both parents were present at JonBenet's death, or initial assault, this would explain why there appears to be collusion.

The other possibility which I itemized above is that one parent attacked JonBenet rendering her more or less lifeless, whilst another parent revised and staged her wine-cellar staging.

The other possibility which has been widely discussed, is that Patsy killed JonBenet, and then blackmailed John into joining her in the staging and consequent deception. Otherwise its difficult to explain away her sexual assault?

There are other extreme variations on this theme, but the important thing to note is that both parents were aware of the prior behaviour of each other. If this were not the case then one parent would be at liberty to accuse the other of murder. To date this has never occurred.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Question: Did John or Patsy ever say that JonBenet walked into the house that night. I know that Berke did, but I cannot remember if either John or Patsy said that. Also, since Berke did say that and then changed his story, he was told to change it and now I know he knows more than he is saying. So the more you think about this neverending, the more you realize things that are staring you in the face. But back again to my first question. Did either John or Patsy say JonBenet walked into the house?

Solace,

No she was carried in asleep, according to the parents.

Burke not only knows if JonBenet walked into the house, but more or less what transpired afterwards, even if he does not know all the details.

His silence tells you about the degree of collusion exisiting between all three surviving residents of the Ramsey household.

This is why the pineapple is no bugaboo but a very important clue in confirming that JonBenet was alive and walking about long after they arrived back, the time taken to snack and digest the pineapple tells you this.

So we know beyond doubt that the version of events according to the three Ramsey's is inconsistent with the forensic evidence!


.

 

[Dru]

I know there are theories in which the abuser isn't the killer, such as the one mentioned above, e.g. the killer saw abuse happening, covered it up, then used the prior fact of abuse to essentially blackmail the abuser into helping with the cover up.

It seems clear that only the killer could have inflicted the vaginal wound, and also that this wound appears to have been inflicted prior to death, that is, not as part of post mortem staging.

If the killer is the abuser this makes sense, as the killer would want to hide the evidence of his/her prior abuse. But if the killer is not the abuser, this doesn't make much sense at all. Why would the killer inflict a sexual injury on a still-living child, and then tell the abuser, "You have to help me, or I'll tell the police you were abusing JBR?" By inflicting the injury, the killer has made sure that whatever evidence of prior abuse might exist has been seriously compromised--would he/she do this if he/she isn't yet sure of the abuser's help with the cover-up, if, in effect, he/she has to blackmail the other person?

And why not simply plant further evidence suggesting that the abuser has, indeed, committed the crime, call 911 to report the murder, and stand by sobbing and wringing one's hands while one's spouse is carted away for the murder you just committed? The abuse evidence will be a strong motive, hard for the abuser to explain away, and the murderer can tell as many lies as are necessary to get the abuser convicted.

In my mind, none of that makes any sense at all. If PR is the killer but not the abuser, then she has to have KNOWN beyond a doubt that abuse was occuring, or the vaginal wound makes no sense at all. But even if she does know about the abuse the vaginal wound makes no sense at all.

I think the abuser is the killer.

 

[Ames]

Solace,

No she was carried in asleep, according to the parents.

Burke not only knows if JonBenet walked into the house, but more or less what transpired afterwards, even if he does not know all the details.

His silence tells you about the degree of collusion exisiting between all three surviving residents of the Ramsey household.

This is why the pineapple is no bugaboo but a very important clue in confirming that JonBenet was alive and walking about long after they arrived back, the time taken to snack and digest the pineapple tells you this.

So we know beyond doubt that the version of events according to the three Ramsey's is inconsistent with the forensic evidence!


.

But at FIRST...the Ramsey's said that she was awake too. She was read to, and sang to...while being tucked into bed. Burke said she was awake too. And THEN...they changed their minds....she was asleep. Just another example of their lies...and not being able to keep them straight.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

No she was carried in asleep, according to the parents.

Burke not only knows if JonBenet walked into the house, but more or less what transpired afterwards, even if he does not know all the details.

His silence tells you about the degree of collusion exisiting between all three surviving residents of the Ramsey household.

This is why the pineapple is no bugaboo but a very important clue in confirming that JonBenet was alive and walking about long after they arrived back, the time taken to snack and digest the pineapple tells you this.

So we know beyond doubt that the version of events according to the three Ramsey's is inconsistent with the forensic evidence!


.

UK, Thank you. But I could swear I read in Steve Thomas' book that either John or Patsy said she walked in and then they changed their story. Am I wrong?

 

[Ames]

UK, Thank you. But I could swear I read in Steve Thomas' book that either John or Patsy said she walked in and then they changed their story. Am I wrong?

I, obviously am not UKGuy....but, you are correct. (See my post above yours).

 

[UKGuy]

UK, Thank you. But I could swear I read in Steve Thomas' book that either John or Patsy said she walked in and then they changed their story. Am I wrong?

Solace,

Yes the Ramsey's did originally offer conflicting accounts, I believe to responding officers, but at an interview with Det. Tom Trujillo and Det. Steve Thomas, Patsy confirmed the last thing eaten by JonBenet was cracked crab at the White's.

Also JonBenet fell asleep in the car on the way home, John carried her upstairs, where Patsy replaced her velvet pants with longjohns, leaving her white shirt on. JonBenet slept throughout these events.

Prior to this Patsy stated JonBenet went to sleep wearing the Red Turtleneck.

Above sourced from Inside The Ramsey Murder Investigation , Steve Thomas, Chap. 18.

The interview statements were the latest Ramsey take of events on the night of the White's party, so superceded prior statements.

As I suggested above the pineapple demonstrates JonBenet was alive and walking about, long after they arrived back home.


.

 

[Toltec]

I do not recall reading anywhere that the red turtleneck was wet....just crumpled up into a ball.

John Ramsey tried to leave Boulder as soon as he "found JonBenet". When told he could not leave because Detectives needed to speak to him...what does Ramsey do?

He takes his family to the Fernies, where he calls over a lawyer acquaintance...he then asks lawyer to help him find a good Defense lawyer. The next day...the Lawyers investigators are at work, taking statements from the Whites and Fernies.

John explains that the Police were targeting his family....HUH? The day of her murder???

THE RAMSEYS NO DOUBT ARE GUILTY!

 

[Ames]

I do not recall reading anywhere that the red turtleneck was wet....just crumpled up into a ball.

John Ramsey tried to leave Boulder as soon as he "found JonBenet". When told he could not leave because Detectives needed to speak to him...what does Ramsey do?

He takes his family to the Fernies, where he calls over a lawyer acquaintance...he then asks lawyer to help him find a good Defense lawyer. The next day...the Lawyers investigators are at work, taking statements from the Whites and Fernies.

John explains that the Police were targeting his family....HUH? The day of her murder???

THE RAMSEYS NO DOUBT ARE GUILTY!

Yes, and he said that he and Patsy spent the night with the Fernie's...and that they had put some sort of thing in the bedroom to help them sleep. It was like a sound machine, or a air purifier....something that made a hum....to help lull them to sleep. He said that he and Patsy figured that the room had been bugged...but, that whomever was listening wouldn't hear anything, except for the loud humming noise. Makes me wonder what he and Patsy talked about that night. If only I could have been a fly on the wall.......

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, can you help me out here? I know you've got tons of experience with this case.

Much obliged.

I'm RDI, but the problem I'm having with the PDI scenarios is that if PR was abusing her daughter, then how do you explain the fact that PR was the one taking JBR to the doctor so frequently, and specifically for problems related to toiliting/vaginitis/etc.? She couldn't know, with certainty, that JBR's doctor wouldn't eventually just say, hey, I don't know what's going on here, let's get her to a specialist, could she? And then the game would be up.

I'd have to say you're right. Sometimes, I get the feeling that she had some pretty good suspicions about what was going on. It's possible her suspicions were confirmed in horrific fashion.

We have absolutely no proof whatsoever that it was the R's doing the staging. Either way, Yep, they were probably surprised, as you say. But if the R's were the ones trying to remove forensic evidence, and did such a good job except for the dictionary, I certainly don't think they'd leave such a glaring EVIDENCE clue, as someone just said in another thread. Dru, I think, who's an RDI. That's probably in the Patsy's Clothing thread.

I think Edmund Blackadder said it best: "Oh, God."

When questioned about the sexual abuse of JonBenet Patsy was not surprised.

I was wondering if anyone else noticed that.

 

[Ames]

Much obliged.



I'd have to say you're right. Sometimes, I get the feeling that she had some pretty good suspicions about what was going on. It's possible her suspicions were confirmed in horrific fashion.



I think Edmund Blackadder said it best: "Oh, God."



I was wondering if anyone else noticed that.

I noticed that too (that Patsy didn't act surprised when she found out about the sexual abuse)...she only reponded with "How did you know that"? Which
didn't sound like the typical response of a mother who had just found out that her six year old daughter had previously been sexually abused.

 

[rashomon]

UKGuy, Jayelles and others,

we've had some discussion a while ago as to where JB's original size 6 underwear on that fatal night had 'vanished', for no way would JB have been wearing those oversized size 12 underwear to the Whites' party.
UKGuy, you posted that a pair of soiled underwear had been found inside some jeans, and it was theorized that maybe JB changed clothes before going to the Whites' party. I looked up that portion of Patsy's interview with Tom Haney, and it says (emphasis mine):

16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her

18 pants.

19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular

20 pants, when she would have worn those last?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably

22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the

23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.

24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0457

1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It

2 appears they are stained.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet

5 had a problem with?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at

7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you

8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you

10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed

11 to just bed wetting?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That

13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those

15 would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in

16 there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them

18 last.

19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,

0458

1 would you have done something with them?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that

3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out

4 of that bathroom.

5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in

6 there.

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the

9 floor that night when you got the --

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear.

12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I

13 don't know.

14 TOM HANEY: Could have.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.

16 Don't know for sure.

17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point

18 during the night she would have gotten up and put those

19 on or thrown them down there or changed in some way;

20 trying to account for those being there.

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine

22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out

23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she

24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

25 What she had on earlier that day, I just

0459

1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just

2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,

3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left

4 them there.

Language question: at the top, does the use of the word 'pants' mean underwear here (for I think 'pants' is also used in American English for British English 'trousers').
From the context it seems clear that they were underwear turned inside out/soiled, but it would interest me how you interpret the word pants.

UKGuy, from where do you draw the inference that this pair of underwear was inside some jeans? Couldn't Tom Haney have used 'pants' in the meaning of 'panties' (= underwear)?

 

[Ames]

Language question: at the top, does the use of the word 'pants' mean underwear here (for I think 'pants' is also used in American English for British English 'trousers').
From the context it seems clear that they were underwear turned inside out/soiled, but it would interest me how you interpret the word pants.

UKGuy, from where do you draw the inference that this pair of underwear was inside some jeans? Couldn't Tom Haney have used 'pants' in the meaning of 'panties' (= underwear)?

I think that he meant pants.. the reference to underwear that he makes, later in the interview, makes me think that he would have used panties or underwear when talking about the ones on her floor, instead of pants...if that was the case, and the statement that Patsy makes about the black velvet pants. I could be wrong though...
16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her

18 pants.

19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular

20 pants, when she would have worn those last?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably

22 recently because they are dropped in the middle of the

23 floor, but I don't remember exactly.

24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0457

1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It

2 appears they are stained.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet

5 had a problem with?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at

7 age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you

8 know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you

10 will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed

11 to just bed wetting?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That

13 would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those

15 would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in

16 there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them

18 last.

19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that

22 bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say

24 for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day,

0458

1 would you have done something with them?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that

3 night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out

4 of that bathroom.

5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in

6 there.

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the

9 floor that night when you got the --

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear.

12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I

13 don't know.

14 TOM HANEY: Could have.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.

16 Don't know for sure.

17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point

18 during the night she would have gotten up and put those

19 on or thrown them down there or changed in some way;

20 trying to account for those being there.

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine

22 that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out

23 asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she

24 had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

25 What she had on earlier that day, I just

0459

1 can't remember. It might have been those. I just

2 can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know,

3 gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left

4 them there.



The fact that she is saying that JB could have gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's, and then left THEM there....leads me to believe that what she left on the floor was PANTS. Because what would her wearing a dress to Priscilla's have to do with panties? Now, if what was on the floor was PANTS, and she changed them and gotten the dress to wear to Priscilla's (which is Patsy's statement)...then, that would make sense. Do you see what I am trying to get at here? I ramble alot! I am thinking that JB stepped right out of the underwear AND the pants...so they were together on the floor. When they talk about stains, I am assuming that they are talking about the panties that were inside of the pants...and not the pants.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, Jayelles and others,

we've had some discussion a while ago as to where JB's original size 6 underwear on that fatal night had 'vanished', for no way would JB have been wearing those oversized size 12 underwear to the Whites' party.
UKGuy, you posted that a pair of soiled underwear had been found inside some jeans, and it was theorized that maybe JB changed clothes before going to the Whites' party. I looked up that portion of Patsy's interview with Tom Haney, and it says (emphasis mine):



Language question: at the top, does the use of the word 'pants' mean underwear here (for I think 'pants' is also used in American English for British English 'trousers').
From the context it seems clear that they were underwear turned inside out/soiled, but it would interest me how you interpret the word pants.

UKGuy, from where do you draw the inference that this pair of underwear was inside some jeans? Couldn't Tom Haney have used 'pants' in the meaning of 'panties' (= underwear)?

rashomon,

The inference was arrived at, from memory, because it was assumed JonBenet was wearing jeans to play outdoors Xmas day on her bike etc.

The clothing issue is ambiguous and open to interpretation, but if JonBenet was changing into her velvet pants to attend the White's party, then I assumed, these were dropped onto the bathroom floor?

I've joined up the sentences in the interview so that it flows more naturally.

16 TOM HANEY: How about 378?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: This is JonBenet's floor, her pants.

19 TOM HANEY: Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last?

21 PATSY RAMSEY: Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly.

24 TOM HANEY: They are kind of inside out.

25 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

0457

1 TOM HANEY: 379 is a close up of it. It appears they are stained.

3 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.

4 TOM HANEY: Is that something that JonBenet had a problem with?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well she, you know, she was at age where she was learning to wipe herself and, you know, sometimes she wouldn't do such a great job.

9 TOM HANEY: Did she have accidents, if you will, in the course of the day or the night, as opposed to just bed wetting?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: Not usually, no, huh-uh. That would probably be more from just not wiping real well.

14 TOM HANEY: Okay. Do you know how long those would have been in that position in 378 on the floor in there?

17 PATSY RAMSEY: It depends when she wore them last.

19 TOM HANEY: Again, do you recall?

20 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't remember.

21 TOM HANEY: On Christmas day were you in that bathroom at all?

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Very likely, but I can't say for sure.

25 TOM HANEY: Had you been in there that day, would you have done something with them?

0458
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I got, you know -- that night I got -- I know I got the long Johns for her out of that bathroom.

5 TOM HANEY: Right, out of one of the draws in there.

7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

8 TOM HANEY: Do you recall seeing those on the floor that night when you got the --

10 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

11 TOM HANEY: -- underwear. (long)?

12 PATSY RAMSEY: They could have been there. I don't know.

14 TOM HANEY: Could have.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Could have been there, yes.

16 Don't know for sure.

17 TOM HANEY: Is it possible that some point during the night she would have gotten up and put those on or thrown them down there or changed in some way; trying to account for those being there.

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's. What she had on earlier that day, I just can't remember. It might have been those. I just can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know, gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left them there.

Now Pants is ambiguous it can be used to mean both underwear and female trousers, normally the context allows you to distinguish the intended reference.

Now with 16 TOM HANEY: How about 378? referring to a photograph, this may in fact refer to her underwear, lying inside out on the floor e.g. the sole subject of the photograph, her jeans/pants may be lying close by and notionally be the subject of photograph 380?

Or the sequence may be reversed. One topic Patsy does not want to discuss is underwear, she suffers from amnesia whenever underwear is mentioned.

Assuming both Tom Haney and Patsy are agreed upon as to the subject of their discussion, although we are confused, since the photograph is right in front of them.

Now if you read through the above interview, there appears to be no disagreement regarding what is being disccused, so lets parse this:

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's. What she had on earlier that day, I just can't remember. It might have been those. I just can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know, gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left them there.

So Patsy states JonBenet wore the black velvet ones to Priscilla's.

Also:
What she had on earlier that day, I just can't remember. It might have been those. I just can't remember. Could have taken those off ... then left them there.

It appears that a photograph showing a soiled pair of JonBenet's trousers/jeans is the subject of discussion, since Patsy directly refers to the black velvet ones as the 'ones' which is also referenced by 'those'. e.g. Patsy does not mention underwear.

So imo the use of the word Pants here is in its standard USA meaning, and refers to female trousers or jeans.

This does not mean there is not a picture of underwear taken close by her Pants, then again, it suggests that there may be none at all, since none were discussed!

That is on Xmas day JonBenet dropped her pink pijamas, and here is a clue, was she wearing underwear? If not did she decide not to dress in a clean pair and wear only play pants or jeans?

As I suggested the clothing issue is ambiguous.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Now Pants is ambiguous it can be used to mean both underwear and female trousers, normally the context allows you to distinguish the intended reference.

Over here, it more typically is used to refer to trousers, male or female. It's rarely used by itself to mean underwear. Women's underware is usually refered to as panties, and men's sometimes as underpants.

 

[Toltec]

John was asked about the black duct tape used to tape JonBenet's mouth....

LS: We have to try to find someone that has that. How often have you seen black duct tape?

JR: I don't recall that I ever have...

LS: How about Patsy?

JR:...Well, it's possible...but the only time I ever remember duct tape was gray duct tape...

Does anyone recall Patsy's words...I don't buy duct tape...it's too gooey.

 

[rashomon]

21 PATSY RAMSEY: I just -- I can't imagine that. No, because I put those -- she was zonked out asleep, so I put her to bed. And she had those, she had worn the black velvet ones to Priscilla's. What she had on earlier that day, I just can't remember. It might have been those. I just can't remember. Could have taken those off, you know, gotten the dress to go to Priscilla's and then left them there.

Disjointed and unfinished sentece by Patsy:." No, because I put those - "
what is she referring to by "those"? Where did she put "those"? Did she stop herelf right in the middle of the sentence because she was going to say something incriminating here?
Another confusing thing: Patsy says that JB was wearing had the black velvet trousers to the White's party, and then says JB could have taken 'those' off, and got the dress to go to the Whites' party?
Would a sequined shirt and pants be referred to as 'dress'? Was that merely sloppy (or nervous) talk on Patsy's part?

Or were there two pairs of pants lying on the floor: the black velvet ones and another pair turned inside out and soiled?
In addition, it doesn't say that there was underwear inside her (soiled) pants turned inside out. Could it be that JB was wearing pants without underwear?
My head is spinning!
But this is a crucial issue, for it seems that no no size six panties (JB's size) have been found at the crime scene, only the far too large size 12 panties on the victim.

 

[coloradokares]

Disjointed and unfinished sentece by Patsy:." No, because I put those - "
what is she referring to by "those"? Where did she put "those"? Did she stop herelf right in the middle of the sentence because she was going to say something incriminating here?
Another confusing thing: Patsy says that JB was wearing had the black velvet trousers to the White's party, and then says JB could have taken 'those' off, and got the dress to go to the Whites' party?
Would a sequined shirt and pants be referred to as 'dress'? Was that merely sloppy (or nervous) talk on Patsy's part?

Or were there two pairs of pants lying on the floor: the black velvet ones and another pair turned inside out and soiled?
In addition, it doesn't say that there was underwear inside her (soiled) pants turned inside out. Could it be that JB was wearing pants without underwear?
My head is spinning!


But this is a crucial issue, for it seems that no no size six panties (JB's size) have been found at the crime scene, only the far too large size 12 panties on the victim.

I think that was Patsy stumbling around just like she always did in interview unless they got to close....then it was Buster you better just look in a different direction. I never understood how a confident speaker as Patsy Ramsey was developed such a verbal stumbling pattern answering simple questions regarding her daughter and her home.