Is there a reason...

  • #41
I noticed the R's usually direct things in the opposite direction,or are vague about specific info. they want to hide.So this is just my take on Patsy's words;I thought it might be interesting,take or leave what you want out of it.In italics are her vague comments(my translation in red):

TH: "It's a bathroom."

PR: "This one looks like someone went to the potty and didn't flush." (translation: it may not have been flushed,but that doesn't mean someone used it.(see my last post)

TH: "Okay, is that out of the ordinary?"

PR: "Not terribly. No." (may very well be out of the ordinary;you'd think she would have at least flushed the toilet,even if she was sloppy).

TH: "Did you take JonBenet to the bathroom prior to putting her to bed?"

PR: "No." (meaning,she probably at least tried to.she's too firm about this one,even though she's vague on other things.denying taking her to the bathroom means she is trying to say she didn't see JB's dirty pants.)

TH: "Would she have gotten up during the night and gone to the bathroom?"

PR: "Possibly." (but probably not on her own(?),from the way it sounds)

TH: "If she did, would she have flushed?"

PR: "Not necessarily." (meaning,she probably would have)

... later ...


PR: "This is JonBenet's floor, her pants."

TH: "Do you recall those particular pants, when she would have worn those last?"

PR: "Not for sure. Probably recently because they are dropped in the middle of the floor, but I don't remember exactly." (she does recall)

TH: "They are kind of inside out."

PR: "Right."

TH: "Here is a close up of it. It appears they are stained."

PR: "Right."

TH: "Is that something JonBenet had a problem with?"

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

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

PR: "Not usually, no, huh-uh. That would probably be more from just not wiping real well." (meaning,she likely did have daytime accidents).

TH: "Okay. Do you know how long those would have been in that position on the floor in there?"

PR: "It depends when she wore them last."

TH: "Again, do you recall?"

PR: "I don't remember." (she does remember).

TH: On Christmas day were you in that bathroom at all?"

PR: "Very likely, but I can't say for sure." (far too vague...she was in there.she knows it).

TH: "Had you been in there that day, would you have done something with them?"

PR: "Well, I got, you know -- that night I got -- I know I got the long johns for her out of that bathroom." (big red flag here...she stumbles a lot over this question.she also never answers the question-would you have done something with them? Instead,she redirects the question).

TH: "Right, out of one of the drawers in there."

PR: "Yeah."

TH: "Do you recall seeing those on the floor that night when you got the -- "

PR: "No." (translation: she does recall).

TH: "underwear?"

PR: "They could have been there. I don't know." (meaning,she does know).

TH: "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?"

PR: "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."
(another red flag here...she stumbles a heck of a lot over this question.)

so my take on it is she wore these pants sometime that day,or that evening,and had an accident in them. Patsy sure does dance around these questions a lot.Her denial lends more credence to it being toilet rage that set her off,IMO.

JMO8778,
Well Patsy's answers are deliberately constructed to be ambiguous, so yield multiple interpretations.

We know she is not telling the truth, some of the red-flag answers that you refer to underline this, note she usually stumbles over the transition from the fake version of events to the true version.

Well JonBenet is supposedly on record as wearing her bedclothes in the morning, then blue jeans to go out and play on her bike etc, then she likely bathed and changed for the Whites, but Patsy is not sure and cannot remember precisely. Because knowing what underwear JonBenet was wearing matters!

The soiled pants are either from another day e.g. 24th or after returning from the White's?

If its the latter and toilet-rage is the correct theory, then just what are they doing being left on the bathroom floor, after deciding to stage a crime-scene in the basement, particularly as this theory leaves 2-3 hours spare since JonBenet is garroted soon after her skull is fractured?


.
 
  • #42
I really don't think Patsy would have so adamantly denied the pants if the weren't a problem.
I think you look at it way too hard,UK.It's really quite simple.Patsy laid it all out,right there in front of LE.

JMO.

JMO8778,
Patsy is not denying the pants like she did the pineapple she suggests its a common occurence.

but ...

TH: "Do you recall seeing those on the floor that night when you got the -- "

PR: "No." (translation: she does recall).

as per legal advice she cannot remember seeing them. The pants are important since Patsy, despite, undressing JonBenet, assisting her in bathing, and stepping over those soiled pants, cannot remember exactly what underwear JonBenet was wearing when and why.

This is because she lied about the size-12's and has no strategy to deal with the underwear issue.

I think you look at it way too hard,UK.
Sure I do, it beats putting my Toilet Rage glasses on and seeing how it all hangs together.
 
  • #43
When PR says in that interview "she had THOSE" and then mentions the black velvet pants she wore to the White's- MY impression is that PR is talking about the soiled black pants on he bathroom floor that LE is showing her in the picture.
 
  • #44
When PR says in that interview "she had THOSE" and then mentions the black velvet pants she wore to the White's- MY impression is that PR is talking about the soiled black pants on he bathroom floor that LE is showing her in the picture.

DeeDee249,
PR: "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."

I tend to agree with you, but its difficult to know if Patsy is acting confused with unfinished sentences, or letting slip a fragment of truth?

Lets assume JonBenet arrived back from the White's walked into the house, then changed into those black pants and the red turtleneck, either on her own or by Patsy telling her?

This might explain why the red turtleneck is balled up and further suggest that JonBenet may have been redressed and cleaned up in the bathroom?

Those assumptions give the Toilet Rage theory more coherence, but again why leave the item in plain view that caused the outburst of rage?


.
 
  • #45
DeeDee249,


I tend to agree with you, but its difficult to know if Patsy is acting confused with unfinished sentences, or letting slip a fragment of truth?

Lets assume JonBenet arrived back from the White's walked into the house, then changed into those black pants and the red turtleneck, either on her own or by Patsy telling her?

This might explain why the red turtleneck is balled up and further suggest that JonBenet may have been redressed and cleaned up in the bathroom?

Those assumptions give the Toilet Rage theory more coherence, but again why leave the item in plain view that caused the outburst of rage?


.

Is it possible that Patsy told her to change into the turtleneck before going to bed so that they would not have to do it in the morning. Is it possible that JB fell asleep watching tv at the end of the bed, as she often did, and WET the bed along with the turtleneck. Remember that Steve Thomas said he was told the sheets smelled of urine and there were traces of creatine on them. But why would Steve Thomas hold back in his book if the shirt was wet with urine. It would have been able to be tested and traced, No? It is just hard to believe that Patsy would want to argue with JB when they got home from the party and I just think it would have been an argument to get JB to put the shirt on, but maybe not. But remember she did not want to wear that earlier - I can't see her changing her mind when she got home.

WHERE IS THE RED TURTLENECK NOW when we need it. Anyone ever read anything or know anything about what happened to it?
 
  • #46
DeeDee249,


I tend to agree with you, but its difficult to know if Patsy is acting confused with unfinished sentences, or letting slip a fragment of truth?

Lets assume JonBenet arrived back from the White's walked into the house, then changed into those black pants and the red turtleneck, either on her own or by Patsy telling her?

This might explain why the red turtleneck is balled up and further suggest that JonBenet may have been redressed and cleaned up in the bathroom?

Those assumptions give the Toilet Rage theory more coherence, but again why leave the item in plain view that caused the outburst of rage?


.

that's what I'm thinking UK..both you and Deedee made good points about the underwear and pants though.But since Thomas thought she was wearing the red turtleneck that night,it stands to reason she would also have changed her pants.And those could have been the pants,since Patsy was questioned about them.That would also explain why no other size 6 underwear was accounted for,(that we know of),and why Patsy needed to put another pair of underwear back on her.
As for why they would be left in plain veiw..well,the red shirt was left there as well.Also her bed wasn't staged to appear an intruder took her.It seems in all the haste,JB's room was overlooked,and her body and crime scene were the most important elements to the stager.Even if there was time left to stage it...it doesn't have to make sense.Adenaline can do crazy things to the mind,as I believe it did to Patsy that night.
 
  • #47
that's what I'm thinking UK..both you and Deedee made good points about the underwear and pants though.But since Thomas thought she was wearing the red turtleneck that night,it stands to reason she would also have changed her pants.And those could have been the pants,since Patsy was questioned about them.That would also explain why no other size 6 underwear was accounted for,(that we know of),and why Patsy needed to put another pair of underwear back on her.
As for why they would be left in plain veiw..well,the red shirt was left there as well.Also her bed wasn't staged to appear an intruder took her.It seems in all the haste,JB's room was overlooked,and her body and crime scene were the most important elements to the stager.Even if there was time left to stage it...it doesn't have to make sense.Adenaline can do crazy things to the mind,as I believe it did to Patsy that night.

JMO8778,
Yes adding in those assumptions allows the Toilet Rage theory to make more sense.

Yet for me it expands the number of inconsistencies, but as you suggest, it may have been andrenalin inspired.

Also in this area since it was Steve Thomas' favorite theory, he must have been in possession of evidence, not yet in the public domain, to have been persuaded that it had more merit than say a molestation theory?


.
 
  • #48
Is it possible that Patsy told her to change into the turtleneck before going to bed so that they would not have to do it in the morning. Is it possible that JB fell asleep watching tv at the end of the bed, as she often did, and WET the bed along with the turtleneck. Remember that Steve Thomas said he was told the sheets smelled of urine and there were traces of creatine on them. But why would Steve Thomas hold back in his book if the shirt was wet with urine. It would have been able to be tested and traced, No? It is just hard to believe that Patsy would want to argue with JB when they got home from the party and I just think it would have been an argument to get JB to put the shirt on, but maybe not. But remember she did not want to wear that earlier - I can't see her changing her mind when she got home.

WHERE IS THE RED TURTLENECK NOW when we need it. Anyone ever read anything or know anything about what happened to it?

Solace,
Is it possible that Patsy told her to change into the turtleneck before going to bed so that they would not have to do it in the morning.
Sure thats possible. If the red-turtleneck was urine-stained, maybe this information is not in the public domain?

I reckon Patsy's version of events regarding the turtleneck are a fabrication, they are similar to her version regarding the size-12's where she is caught out big time.

I don't think she argued on arriving home, I was only generalising those assumptions to inject them into the Toilet Rage theory since it appeared they may help explain more of the evidence.

Common sense suggests the Toilet Rage event took place a length of time after JonBenet snacked pineapple, so using those assumptions, JonBenet must have redressed shortly after arriving back home, so either JonBenet was fully dressed or half-dressed, depending on your theory.


.
 
  • #49
JMO8778,
Yes adding in those assumptions allows the Toilet Rage theory to make more sense.

Yet for me it expands the number of inconsistencies, but as you suggest, it may have been andrenalin inspired.

Also in this area since it was Steve Thomas' favorite theory, he must have been in possession of evidence, not yet in the public domain, to have been persuaded that it had more merit than say a molestation theory?


.

well,part of what keeps me from believing it was molestation-inspired,was the fact ST apparently had evidence of Patsy corporally cleaning JB.Would JR have molested her on top of chronic injuries? It's not that I'm saying he wouldn't have the personality to do that.But remember that Patsy called the pediatrician 3x within 10 mins.in mid-Dec.,and couldn't for the life of her recall why.It was obviously a frantic situation..IMO,JB was likely bleeding or in pain.Plus,ST mentions the school nurse visits,all which occurred on a Mon.,and we have never been privy to what those visits were about.I just question if JR even knew Patsy was corporally cleaning her.
 
  • #50
well,part of what keeps me from believing it was molestation-inspired,was the fact ST apparently had evidence of Patsy corporally cleaning JB.Would JR have molested her on top of chronic injuries? It's not that I'm saying he wouldn't have the personality to do that.But remember that Patsy called the pediatrician 3x within 10 mins.in mid-Dec.,and couldn't for the life of her recall why.It was obviously a frantic situation..IMO,JB was likely bleeding or in pain.Plus,ST mentions the school nurse visits,all which occurred on a Mon.,and we have never been privy to what those visits were about.I just question if JR even knew Patsy was corporally cleaning her.

JMO8778,

ST apparently had evidence of Patsy corporally cleaning JB.
Do you have a source for this?

Would JR have molested her on top of chronic injuries?
Not certain what you mean here, but I doubt if the answer is yes that it only took place once?

I just question if JR even knew Patsy was corporally cleaning her.
You may be correct and Patsy was using the corporal cleaning as a form of abuse, which needed to be hidden, but if JonBenet was being corporally cleaned, why would she need to visit the school nurse? If she was bleeding why did the nurse not report this to the authorities?

Either JonBenet, due to Patsy's negligence, had an internal infection, or due to some sort of weekend abuse, had an ongoing chronic infection?

My guess is the latter, with Dr. Beuf roped in to agree with Patsy's assessment that the infections are caused by poor hygiene, which even if it were true, you have to wonder what he made of JonBenet's eroded hymen and enlarged opening, and if he didn't look, since he simply accepted what Patsy said by taking a cursory external look, confirmed the reddening of her skin and prescribed some skin cream, whatever?

What would be shocking, or would it, would be Dr. Beuf looking the other way, knowing full well what he was being presented with, but the Ramsey retainer fees were too generous to ignore?


.
 
  • #51
When little girls have poor bathroom hygiene, it usually results in UTIs (urinary tract infection). NOT a yeast infection. The UTI can be the result of not being taught to wipe front to back, or fecal matter that remains in the underwear and contaminates the vagina.
Bubble baths are well-known causes of infections in children, (adult women, too) and this CAN cause yeast infections.
I would LOVE to know what kind if infections JBR suffered from.
Infections can occur in little girls who are being sexually abused as well. Insertion of anything into a child's vagina can cause the type of irritation and erosion that lets bacteria in.
I imagine the school nurse being seen because JBR was "uncomfortable" and irritated in the vaginal area.
Anyone know if any LE were ever allowed to see those school records?
 
  • #52
When little girls have poor bathroom hygiene, it usually results in UTIs (urinary tract infection). NOT a yeast infection. The UTI can be the result of not being taught to wipe front to back, or fecal matter that remains in the underwear and contaminates the vagina.
Bubble baths are well-known causes of infections in children, (adult women, too) and this CAN cause yeast infections.
I would LOVE to know what kind if infections JBR suffered from.
Infections can occur in little girls who are being sexually abused as well. Insertion of anything into a child's vagina can cause the type of irritation and erosion that lets bacteria in.
I imagine the school nurse being seen because JBR was "uncomfortable" and irritated in the vaginal area.
Anyone know if any LE were ever allowed to see those school records?

DeeDee249,
Anyone know if any LE were ever allowed to see those school records?
From memory the DA denied investigators permission to request access to her school records. Also I think Dr. Beuf himself denied investigators access to his records, I think its in DOI?

Now we know JonBenet visited the nurse on Mondays in Dec 1996, and was it LHP who stated the bedwetting resumed around the start of December, so this is not hidden from us, nor is it denied that JonBenet had toileting problems, e.g. it is not a matter of dispute.

So its unlikely that it will be this that is being hidden, it must some related symptom that is being hidden behind patient/doctor confidentiality and the DA's refusal to issue a suponea?

JonBenet had all the usual colds and coughs, and was eventually diagnosed with allergic rhinitis, I'm not certain what medication was prescribed if any?

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she would,
12 like we talked about earlier, you know, her
13 wiping habits weren't terrific. And so she had
14 urinated, maybe she wouldn't wipe properly and
15 her panties would get wet, a little damp, which
16 would cause a little irritation, you know, kind
17 of like diaper rash and the same with you know,
18 bowel movements. You know.
19 So I would use -- a lot of time I
20 used Desitin or something, she had some redness,
21 you know, so I used Desitin.

22 TOM HANEY: Is that something that
23 the doctor prescribed?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: No, it's not
25 prescription. Desitin is for diaper rash.
0576
1 TOM HANEY: Okay. Did he ever
2 prescribe anything?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
4 TOM HANEY: Was it ever so bad
5 that, you know, I mean it was a real--
6 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
7 TOM HANEY: -- real problem for
8 her?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
10 TOM HANEY: Okay. And you said
11 that you would use this Desitin?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
13 TOM HANEY: You know, how often?
14 PATSY RAMSEY: You know, I don't
15 know. I just kept the tube in her bathroom
16 drawer there.
If she complained that her bottom
17 was hurting I would take a little on a tissue,
18 you know, and put it on there. Not very often.
So Patsy descibes it as a little irritation or diaper rash she attributes this to damp underwear.

Lets agree on diaper rash, as a minimal description, since Patsy and the investigators accept this. Note Patsy states Dr. Beuf never prescribed JonBenet anything which like the size-12's may be an outright lie e.g.

1 TOM HANEY: Okay. Did he ever
2 prescribe anything?
3 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

So if Patsy was lying and knew some details must be hidden, hence the flurry of calls to Dr. Beuf? This then includes the good doctor in the scope of the conspiracy phase of the homicide?


So if something was prescribed then it cannot really be about JonBenet's diaper rash, since that is openly admitted by Patsy to be a problem, and serves no useful purpose to deny any prescription.

Also if Patsy was medicating JonBenet herself does this not suggest she was actively attempting to reduce any scope for intervention by Dr. Beuf?

e.g. She is hiding something, and with JonBenet visiting the school nurse on Mondays in Dec 1996, this suggests it was as a consequence of some activity taking place over the weekend. Now JonBenet's damp undwerwear and diaper rash would most certainly not be confined to Monday's, so another reason maybe more relevant here?

Now you could argue this either way, that is Patsy was cleaning JonBenet over zealously and reinforcing the diaper-rash, or that she was being actively molested on those weekends, or both?


.
 
  • #53
I think something was happening on the weekends. JAR would probably been around then, and I have always suspected there was some abuse there because of what was in that suitcase in the basement, although I don't necessarily think he was involved that night. It is ONE of my RDI theories.
I can see doctor/patient confidentiality as far as the PUBLIC are concerned, but not LE. NO way any reputable DA would deny that access. Hunter either KNEW what was in there or was being told to block access by someone who did.
After all, this was a child who was MURDERED. Why would anyone want to prevent as much information as possible from getting to LE- unless there was something they didn't want them to know.
 
  • #54
Ames:

Wasn't the name of her Elem. school, HIGH PEAKS? I looked it up, and found the web page, but it didn't even mention the hours of kindergarten

I know this is late, but on pg. 369 in DOI, Patty Novack says "When the kids are in kindergarten, they only go to school for a half day. So we moms would pick the kids up, and while we waited, we would just chat."

Patty's youngest child, a boy was a year older than JonBonet. Her middle one (daughter) was Burke's age, and her oldest, who was fourteen, would sometimes babysit JonBenet. She must have known the Ramsey's pretty well or seen Patsy often with the childen being so close in age, etc.

Also, LHP says "JonBonet was wetting her bed almost every other day toward the end." pg. 380, DOI.
 
  • #55
Ames:



I know this is late, but on pg. 369 in DOI, Patty Novack says "When the kids are in kindergarten, they only go to school for a half day. So we moms would pick the kids up, and while we waited, we would just chat."

thx for that info :)
..so if it was only 1/2 a day,it's odd JB didn't start on time,IMO,unless Patsy still found the school schedule itself-days on,days off,too confining for the schedule she wanted for JB,inc. all the lessons.
 
  • #56
I have to say that when my daughter was in Kindergarten, it was the standard half-day program (which in most districts is really only about 2 1/2 hours; from 9am- 11:30am OR 12:30-3pm) . It is kind of disrupting and cuts the day in half, you really don't have much time to get anything done before it's time to pick them up again. So I can see where a mom with an agenda, as PR was, might want to wait till the next year to get on that schedule.

About High Peaks - I recall reading that it was a private (but not parochial) school- maybe a Charter school of some kind, an alternative to the local public school.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
1,125
Total visitors
1,294

Forum statistics

Threads
632,447
Messages
18,626,728
Members
243,154
Latest member
findkillers
Back
Top