Interpreting the "evidence"

[Nehemiah]

National Enquirer.

 

[RedChief]

National Enquirer.

Nehemiah,

Thank you for that. This is always a dilemma for me--keep my mouth shut and appear ignorant, or open it and remove all doubt.

No pain, no gain.

Gosh, there was something else I wanted to ask....oh yeah, Patsy said her shower was broken that morning; has this ever been checked out? Verified? No other showers (bathrooms) in the house that she could have utilized?

Also, she chose garbage bags for carrying "laundry" (LAUNDRY?) on the plane; another Southern idiom? In these parts laundry is dirty clothes. Hadn't she heard of soft-sided luggage or duffle bags? They do make good parachutes; now, this woman is a thinker.

I see nothing terribly suspicious about her "testimony" regarding the size-12's. She did say they were kept in the bathroom. I was thinkin' they were kept in the bedroom. There were DOW's in the smaller sizes--4 to 6?

I'm countin' on ya.

 

[BlueCrab]

I see nothing terribly suspicious about her "testimony" regarding the size-12's.

I do. Patsy was LYING through her teeth during that part of the interview.

Patsy was trying to make it seem almost normal that JonBenet was wearing size 12-14 underwear by saying that she usually wore size 8 to 10. But the only size children's underwear found in the house, besides the new package of 12-14's, were sizes 4 and 6.

From the 2000 interviews in Atlanta:

ATTORNEY BRUCE LEVIN: "What size underpants would you normally buy for her?"

PATSY RAMSEY: "8 to 10."

Later in the interview:

MIKE KANE: "And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in the bathroom. ..... OKAY. And every one of those was either a size 4 or a size 6. Okay?"

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

Should we continue to consider the items ,brought to light and over attended by the BPD, as being evidence.
The crime isn't solved, so "just maybe", we are obsessively staying on their wrong path, looping around and getting as "nowhere" as the BPD?
Because they said the child was murdered in the basement, we are to accept this. Why can't we consider it was a kidnapping and the perfect way to dispose of a body was to "bring it back"? Eliminates an important investigative measure...looking for a killer.

 

[RedChief]

Why can't we consider it was a kidnapping and the perfect way to dispose of a body was to "bring it back"? Eliminates an important investigative measure...looking for a killer.

sissi,

Holy Toledo! I hadn't thought of this; but, then why leave the ransom note (not retrieve it)?

It isn't very likely that anyone seriously intending to kidnap JonBenet would end up clubbing her half to death, strangling her, sexually abusing her (whatever order you want to put this in) and leaving her body behind in the wine cellar, not to mention failing to retrieve the ransom note. Of course, occasionally, some mighty strange things do happen. So far, no one, that I remember, has cared to opine as to whether the body was hidden or not. I take that back; UKGuy said no.

It isn't uncommon for the abductees to be killed, usually accidentally, but sometimes on purpose, yet the abductor/s persist in demanding the ransom. Sometimes they succeed; usually they don't. Were there no dumpsters in Boulder at the time?

Suppose that you, as kidnapper (this is a hypothetical), plan to grab the girl, kill her, dispose of the body ("you will be denied her remains") and request ransom. It was, after all, a meager amount, that John might have been willing to pay, without proof of his daughter's well-being. It was worth a shot. If you thought you could get away with leaving the body in the house, in an out-of-the-way place, as John described the wine cellar, then you just might give that a try. I know it seems far-fetched, but what better way to quickly silence the girl (whack her on the head) and ensure that she not remain alive to talk about her ordeal (the cord around her neck)? Well, they could have chloroformed her, taken her to basement for noise suppression, and beat her to death (no need for the necklace), so why didn't they? Well, they did, sort of; minus the chloroform....the garotte was for good measure.

BlueCrab,

Patsy seems to have been caught in a lie there; kind of uncharacteristic of her, huh. Wouldn't you think she'd be expecting them to ask her that question? It's those darn drugs that she takes for anxiety and depression!

"Ill-omened, augury descends"--?

 

[UKGuy]

BlueCrab,

Patsy seems to have been caught in a lie there; kind of uncharacteristic for her, huh. Wouldn't you think she'd be expecting them to ask her that question? It's those darn drugs that she takes for anxiety and depression!

"Ill-omened, augury descends"--?

More Prevarication:

4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey,

5 prior to going to the Whites, did you see

6 JonBenet in panties? In other words, were

7 you at any point, prior to going to the

8 Whites, in the process of her getting

9 dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing

10 panties?

11 A. I mean, I just probably didn't

12 notice. I would, she must have had them on

13 or I would have certainly noticed if she

14 didn't have any on.

15 Q. When you came home and you got

16 her ready for bed, did you notice if she was

17 wearing panties? When you changed her out

18 of the black velvet --

19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

20 Q. - type pants --

21 A. Right.

22 Q. -- and into the long underwear

23 pants --

24 A. Uh-huh, right.

25 Q. -- the White ones, did you notice

0113

1 if she had a pair of panties on?

2 A. Yes, she did. I believe she did.

3 Q. Why do you remember that? I

4 mean, what do you remember? I just want to

5 know what you remember about that.

6 A. Well, I took the jeans off and

7 put the long leggies on.

8 Q. And you noticed that she had

9 panties on in that process?

10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

11 Q. You have to answer yes or no.

12 A. Well, I noticed -- I mean,

13 nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't

14 had panties on, it would have been unusual.

15 So --

16 Q. So there was nothing unusual

17 there?

18 A. Correct.

19 Q. When you actually removed those --

20 you have -- they are black velvet pants?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And did the panties come down

23 with them when you removed those pants, if

24 you remember?

25 A. I don't remember.

0114

1 Q. If they had, would you remember,

2 or is that too long ago?

3 A. It has been a long time.

4 Q. But did you change -- did you put

5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point

6 when you were getting her ready for bed?

7 A. No.

When discovered in the Wine-Cellar JonBenet was wearing all her jewellry, some teenage amateur attempt at ponytail styling, but NO socks?

 

[RedChief]

Thank you for that, UKGuy.

Now, what is it about this segment of transcript from interview that causes you to believe Patsy was prevaricating?

I'm not sure I understood your comment about the pony-tail styling. Did you mean to imply that it was amateurish and therefore could not have been accomplished by anyone other than a youth?

And about the missing socks: were they ever found? What is so unusual about a sockless child? Did you ever go barefoot and feel the earth beneath your feet? It's a neat (that is, cool) sensation. Who in the world sleeps with his/her socks on under covers? Try it, your feet will get hot and uncomfortable. Did the Ramseys say they hadn't removed her socks? Well, if that is the case, then, I wonder who did? JonBenet? She can eat pineapple but she can't remove her socks? Poor dear!

Sock it to me!

 

[UKGuy]

Now, what is it about this segment of transcript from interview that causes you to believe Patsy was prevaricating?

Well I thought it would be self evident she ums and awes, says yes then no then maybe , then its oh I forget etc etc

e.g.
"
22 Q. And did the panties come down

23 with them when you removed those pants, if

24 you remember?

25 A. I don't remember.

0114

1 Q. If they had, would you remember,

2 or is that too long ago?

3 A. It has been a long time.

4 Q. But did you change -- did you put

5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point

6 when you were getting her ready for bed?

7 A. No.
"
She goes from I dont remember to a definite NO, now thats prevarication !

I'm not sure I understood your comment about the pony-tail styling. Did you mean to imply that it was amateurish and therefore could not have been accomplished by anyone other than a youth?

Without repeating all the details, JonBenet has had pony-tails styled in her hair using 1 cloth hair tie, and 2 blue elastic bands. They dont seem to be symmetrical and any function as a sleeping aid is lost on me. So assuming it was not Patsy who styled them, its likely to be someone who is attempting to make JonBenet's hair look "normal" as per the Wine-Cellar staging, so it could be described as amateurish, whether its indicitive of a preteen or teenage is an open question?

And about the missing socks: were they ever found? What is so unusual about a sockless child? Did you ever go barefoot and feel the earth beneath your feet? It's a neat (that is, cool) sensation. Who in the world sleeps with his/her socks on under covers? Try it, your feet will get hot and uncomfortable. Did the Ramseys say they hadn't removed her socks? Well, if that is the case, then, I wonder who did? JonBenet? She can eat pineapple but she can't remove her socks? Poor dear!
Sock it to me!

Well I consider everything at the crime scene to be important e.g. she is wearing all her jewellry, do little girls go to bed bejewelled ? Also anything thats missing may be relevant. So her wearing no socks seems as if it should suggest something, what I am not certain. I assume she was wearing socks when she was put to bed? Of course what you suggest about wearing socks to bed is true, but did JonBenet ever make it to bed ?

 

[RedChief]

Well I thought it would be self evident she ums and awes, says yes then no then maybe , then its oh I forget etc etc

e.g.
"
22 Q. And did the panties come down

23 with them when you removed those pants, if

24 you remember?

25 A. I don't remember.

0114

1 Q. If they had, would you remember,

2 or is that too long ago?

3 A. It has been a long time.

4 Q. But did you change -- did you put

5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point

6 when you were getting her ready for bed?

7 A. No.
"
She goes from I dont remember to a definite NO, now thats prevarication !

Without repeating all the details, JonBenet has had pony-tails styled in her hair using 1 cloth hair tie, and 2 blue elastic bands. They dont seem to be symmetrical and any function as a sleeping aid is lost on me. So assuming it was not Patsy who styled them, its likely to be someone who is attempting to make JonBenet's hair look "normal" as per the Wine-Cellar staging, so it could be described as amateurish, whether its indicitive of a preteen or teenage is an open question?


Well I consider everything at the crime scene to be important e.g. she is wearing all her jewellry, do little girls go to bed bejewelled ? Also anything thats missing may be relevant. So her wearing no socks seems as if it should suggest something, what I am not certain. I assume she was wearing socks when she was put to bed? Of course what you suggest about wearing socks to bed is true, but did JonBenet ever make it to bed ?

No wonder you see it as prevarication; you misread it. She said she didn't remember the pants coming down. When asked if she had put a fresh pair on her, she said, "no". Two different questions.

About making JonBenet's hair look normal for the wine cellar staging (I don't deny there was staging; also I don't affirm it). I think I get your drift, at last. You're not opining that wearing ponytails to bed is abnormal; you're opining that these particular ponytails look as if some amateur styled them in an attempt to make them look normal. Ok, that may be so; but, why would this ad hoc styling be necessary? Do you think the hair got mussed up by the perp in the process of killing and or ravaging the child? And this less-than-perfect hair styling was undertaken to convince us that the child had been snatched out of her bed, right? Could be. Could you direct me to a photo of these pony tails, that I might scrutinize it/them?

So what we have to consider is what JonBenet ought to have been wearing, based on the testimony of her parents and others, and what she is found wearing in the wine cellar, etc. Yes, makes sense to me. Now, if we notice that there is no appreciable difference between what she is found wearing and what she ought to be wearing, we still can't conclude, soley on that basis, that the scene is staged. Right? There is left open the possibility that she was INDEED snatched from her bed and transported to the wine cellar. So, we should look for subtle discrepancies that we can postulate are evidence of staging. Right? One major difference between what she was found wearing and what she usually wore to bed, is the garotte, right? That kinda screws up the bedroom abduction staging. Right?

 

[sissi]

Socks? I thought she wore tights that day? If she didn't wear tights, then she didn't have on size 12 panties , they would have hung down ,held up only by the crotch of the velvet pants.
Okay then, hmm, a mother wouldn't put large undies on her, a dad would not either, and a kid wouldn't bother, so the killer changed her undies! Where are the size six bloomie Wednesdays?

 

[Nehemiah]

Without repeating all the details, JonBenet has had pony-tails styled in her hair using 1 cloth hair tie, and 2 blue elastic bands. They dont seem to be symmetrical and any function as a sleeping aid is lost on me. So assuming it was not Patsy who styled them, its likely to be someone who is attempting to make JonBenet's hair look "normal" as per the Wine-Cellar staging, so it could be described as amateurish, whether its indicitive of a preteen or teenage is an open question?

And remember that there were hair ties strewn on the floor in JB's bedroom.

Plus, this has always struck me as suspect: those blue hair ties did not match JB's reported clothing that she wore to the White's party. Was Patsy from the South or not? Southern women would make sure that their daughter's hair ties matched their party clothes!

 

[Nehemiah]

So what we have to consider is what JonBenet ought to have been wearing, based on the testimony of her parents and others, and what she is found wearing in the wine cellar, etc. Yes, makes sense to me. Now, if we notice that there is no appreciable difference between what she is found wearing and what she ought to be wearing, we still can't conclude, soley on that basis, that the scene is staged. Right? There is left open the possibility that she was INDEED snatched from her bed and transported to the wine cellar. So, we should look for subtle discrepancies that we can postulate are evidence of staging. Right? One major difference between what she was found wearing and what she usually wore to bed, is the garotte, right? That kinda screws up the bedroom abduction staging. Right?

At first Patsy said that JB had on the red turtleneck. She later changed her story.

Since the photos from the White's party have never been released, and the Whites have not spoken publicly, we can only assume that the Rs are being truthful about what JB wore that night, and how her hair was styled. It would sure help us if we could see those darn pictures.

 

[UKGuy]

So what we have to consider is what JonBenet ought to have been wearing, based on the testimony of her parents and others, and what she is found wearing in the wine cellar, etc. Yes, makes sense to me. Now, if we notice that there is no appreciable difference between what she is found wearing and what she ought to be wearing, we still can't conclude, soley on that basis, that the scene is staged. Right? There is left open the possibility that she was INDEED snatched from her bed and transported to the wine cellar. So, we should look for subtle discrepancies that we can postulate are evidence of staging. Right? One major difference between what she was found wearing and what she usually wore to bed, is the garotte, right? That kinda screws up the bedroom abduction staging. Right?

Does it? The whole idea of the staging is to present you with precisely that. And its obvious her asphyxia was not staged, but that does not mean the paintbrush handle assisted her murder. The cord on its own would be sufficient, she was only 6-years old not 16.

 

[UKGuy]

And remember that there were hair ties strewn on the floor in JB's bedroom.

Plus, this has always struck me as suspect: those blue hair ties did not match JB's reported clothing that she wore to the White's party. Was Patsy from the South or not? Southern women would make sure that their daughter's hair ties matched their party clothes!

Yes I agree, it was those hair ties on the floor that got me thinking. That is to what extent has the bedroom scene been cleaned up? Or was she never in bed but elsewhere in the house, and so I imagine someone running up and down those stairs , or doing it fast fast in a panic grabbing the size-12 underwear and the hair ties, maybe some jewellry, all in one go! So in the same manner the wine-cellar is unfinished the bedroom is left in a state of disarray or unfished in cleaned up terms. There are parts of the house where JonBenet has been that appear not to be quite right, but not so disordered as to be labelled, part of her death.

Off the top of my head I am sure there is a picture of JonBenet in the public domain where she is wearing a blue velvet dress. So she had something to wear that would match those blue hair ties.

I like the feel of this since it matches both what we think is staged evidence and what may have occurred, but it may just all be speculation in the end.

 

[RedChief]

Socks? I thought she wore tights that day? If she didn't wear tights, then she didn't have on size 12 panties , they would have hung down ,held up only by the crotch of the velvet pants.
Okay then, hmm, a mother wouldn't put large undies on her, a dad would not either, and a kid wouldn't bother, so the killer changed her undies! Where are the size six bloomie Wednesdays?

You have to admit the size 12's are rather suspicious. Let's assume they have some unique connection to the homicide. Put yourself in the killer's socks, or tights if you prefer. You (the killer) have some good reason for dressing JonBenet in those bloomers. What is it? Maybe that they are Wednesday bloomers is significant. Maybe that they came from the new bag of big bloomers isn't so significant. Roses. Maybe that they are decorated with roses is significant. We may return to this eventually. Back to Wednesday. These bloomers, except for size, would have been appropiate for Wednesday. If the smaller bloomers that these replaced were also Wednesdays, and if you desired to conceal the fact that you had replaced the bloomers, you might select Wednesdays. But why wouldn't you also select a pair of the proper size? Maybe because there were no pair of the proper size other than those you had decided to replace. What happened to that pair, and why had you decided to replace it? Another question you might want to ask is were there bloomers of the proper size for the remaining days of the week? Wouldn't that be odd? She's wearing the big Wednesdays and the little Wednesdays are absent. Now, these Wednesdays, are OK except for size. They are way too big. Won't the person or persons you're trying to deceive notice that they are too big? Maybe, but what alternative do you have? When she was put to bed she was wearing little Wednesdays. Who knew this or who knew what the custom was? Whom are you trying to deceive? Suppose you decide to replace the little Wednesdays with little regulars (not day of week). Surely out of 15 pair in her bathroom there were a few of these. Who would notice the switch? The mom? The dad? The brother? The detective? Don't think the detective would notice. He's not familiar with the custom. He wasn't there when she was put to bed. Don't think the brother would be in a position to notice. The dad might notice. He might be familiar with the custom. But, surely the mom would notice. Right? Whom are we trying to deceive? Probably the mom. She's the closest to the child. She would surely know that those unlabeled bloomers weren't what the child should be wearing; weren't what the child had put on that day; weren't what the custom demanded. So who is trying to fool the mother? Is the brother trying to fool the mother? Is the father trying to fool the mother? Who? The stranger/intruder has no need to fool anyone. The stranger/intruder has no need to replace bloomers. He might take bloomers with him as a souvenir, but why replace them with the big Wednesdays? He departs the house, leaving the girl dead in the basement, and he's worried that somone will realize that he's replaced her bloomers???? Give me a break! The term intruder/acquaintance has surfaced recently. This is a misleading term, for the intruder/acquaintance is nonetheless an intruder. He's someone the Ramseys know, but he is in the house without their knowing; that makes him an intruder. He is no less menacing than the stranger. There is no need for this distinction.

Now, why did you feel the need to change those bloomers? What was wrong with the little ones--the ones that fit? Did she soil them? What? And why are the big ones bloody when she is found wearing them in the basement? Is there something on those little bloomers other than the usual materials that prompted changing? Is there blood and/or forensic materials on those little bloomers? What? Is there something on those little bloomers that can tie you to her murder? Is there something on those little bloomers that can tie you to fondling and murder? What? Did you fondle her in the process of changing her? What? She wouldn't stop bleeding so you killed her?

When you did that, you killed us all.

 

[UKGuy]

Socks? I thought she wore tights that day? If she didn't wear tights, then she didn't have on size 12 panties , they would have hung down ,held up only by the crotch of the velvet pants.
Okay then, hmm, a mother wouldn't put large undies on her, a dad would not either, and a kid wouldn't bother, so the killer changed her undies! Where are the size six bloomie Wednesdays?

Ok if she wore tights I dont think I read anywhere patsy saying she rolled them off before putting Jonbenet to bed?

If she was wearing them where are they, since this is more forensic evidence to test the size-12 pants against?

So even if an intruder did it where did all the missing evidence go, just why was it removed?

Also if she was wearing tights, assuming she never went to bed, did she dress up in something else?

the Wine-Cellar flings up more questions than we can answer !

 

[Nehemiah]

RedChief, you bring up some excellent points about the size 12 panties. I think it's very possible that JB was wearing the smaller Wed. panties, and for evidential reasons, they were removed and someone went into her bathroom and saw the bigger Wed. panties and put them on her. That doesn't sound like something a mother would do. A mother would automatically realize that a child of JB's size would not be wearing size 12 panties. That makes me think that it was most likely a male--who in his visual mode saw the Wednesday and connected that to another pair just like the ones he removed.

UK...good point about the tights. The Rs take care to point out that John doesn't remove JB's clothing; that's Patsy's job. I think there is a reason for that. Either they don't want to give the appearance of John being around her unclothed, or they know of some evidence that the BPD holds that they are subtly refuting.

 

[UKGuy]

Nehemiah:

Yes I agree John was so careful when being interviewed on undressing JonBenet. And here is Patsy almost colluding, you have to wonder if it goes beyond a "simple" homicide to some kind of "family affair"?

 

[RedChief]

We've got to try harder to understand what happened that night/morning.

A good place to begin our renewed effort is the autopsy report.

The injuries tell a story.

The vaginal injury is an especially critical item of evidence: Was it inflicted by the perp maliciously, or in the process of an attempt at sexual gratification of one form or another? Does it represent evidence of torture, evidence of curious exploration, evidence of punishment, evidence of an attempt to hide prior abuse, or what? It IS an injury to an exclusively female body part. The perp could have chosen to injure her thumb or her left ear or her right knee, but he didn't; must have been a good reason for that.

The coroner describes "abrasions" to the hymen and to the vaginal wall adjacent to it, and "possibly" to the vestibule where it meets the hymen. These are all right side injuries. There is faint purple discoloration of a major labium. This is also a right side injury, if it is an injury at all--no underlying hemorrhage was indentified. Coincidentally, the head injury is right side, the "stun" mark on the face is right side, and the shoulder injury is right side.

The coroner refers to the hymenal injury as a reddish-purple [paraphrase] abrasion. Is it possible that it could have been more accurately described as a bruise? The coroner, bless his heart, seems to have a predilection for describing tissue surface irregularities as "abrasions".

Whether bruise or abrasion, these vaginal injuries (to use the term loosely) are all right-side injuries. Is there some significance to that? Even the hyperemia in the vestibule which could be attributable to rubbing or rotation, is more distinct toward the right side. There is at least one other possible explanation for the hyperemia--sexual arousal; but, does that seem likely? Blushing is a form of hyperemia as is the reddish crease on the underside of the finger joints in caucasians. The latter is caused by frequent flexion.

My guess is--and it's only a guess, though a somewhat educated one--that whatever instrument (not the male member) was involved in making those injuries, was of small cross-section and inflexible, and jammed into the vagina, possibly also causing the pale purple discoloration of the labium that Dr. Meyer described, though not necessarily. That discoloration could have resulted from the pressure exerted by the perp's fist in the jamming process. And, since there was so little injury to the vagina (any would be too much), it doesn't appear that this jamming motion was repetitive to any extent. The erosion of the surface of the hymen that Dr. Meyer described could have been caused by a single motion. These injuries are all shallow.

If the broken end of the notorious paintbrush handle had been used as the instrument which inflicted the injury, wouldn't you expect a great deal more injury, and wouldn't you expect to find abundant splinter residue? It is the very lack of such residue and the relatively minor nature of the injury that leads me to believe that the end of the instrument which did the damage was relatively smooth.

Is there any evidence to suggest that this injury was inflicted AFTER the pubic area had been wiped? There was blood in the panties.

What are we to understand from all this? To me there seem to be only two possibilites for the motive: (1.) to stage an injury (2.) to inflict pain.

Was she on her tummy or her back when these injuries were inflicted? She was very probably alive.

Check out the art teacher.

That's how I see it......

 

[skybluepink]

I appreciate Websleuths letting me join in the discussion.
I'm wondering what is known about the aborted ski trip planned for 12/26. Specifically, could the desire to avoid going have been the trigger?
Possible scenario:
1. Cancer survivor is consumed with self-pity and resentment toward her husband for not paying her the attention and respect she deserved.
2. He arranges an unwanted ski vacation with the stepkids.
3. Feeling powerless to object, and/or unwilling to risk alienating him, she decides to create a temporary emergency--the fake kidnapping.
4. Writing the ransom note is catharsis, an expression of the repressed rage. In fact, parts of the note seem to echo planning for the early-a.m. departure for the ski trip--in particular, the cumbersome "we might call you early" sentence, but also the "bring an adequate size attache" and "I advise you to be rested" comments.
5. Unfortunately, the gleeful "Victory" turned out to be Pyrrhic. What started out as a maybe halfday disappearance ended in accidental death when the abductee (who'd been thoughtfully fortified with pineapple to sustain her)foiled the plan by recognizing the perp and/or fighting back.
Perhaps the medium is the real message here: the daughter was the medium through which the mother demonstrated her values.

I say it was no accident. But the word premeditated is not quite accurate either. I say Patsy was subject to compulsive thoughts. She had a history of using JonBenet. Over time she saw JonBenet as an object. In depth psychology terms the object carries the projection of the inner workings of the mind. Patsy unconsciously projected her dark and light sides onto the girl. The dark side, her criminal nature, recieved the abuse, the punishment for sin. The light side went to heaven as an angel. This split thinking was evident in her display of JonBenet in the pageants and the reports of Patsy sending the girl to school looking unkempt.