John Ramsey on Oprah

[DeeDee249]

Maybe she couldn't read, but Kindergarten age children can 'match'. If she took off the size 6 Wednesday undies, she could easily match them with the size 12 Wednesday undies.

But if all her undies were taken, even the ones in the laundry, then the size 12's had to be staging if no other size 12's from the set were removed from he house by LE.

That was a HUGE screw up by the killer....

Yes it was, IMHO. I believe the stager(s) did not think anyone would notice that the panties she was wearing were not her proper size. They thought they are girl's panties and that's the end of it. They were under her longjohns, for one, and under there it wasn't immediately apparent that they were too large for a child that size.
We here on the boards have the luxury of dissecting this case and every move the killer(s) made with 12 years of study behind us. That night, in the awful reality of what had happened, no one was even remotely thinking about what would happen when police were called and their child was removed to a morgue for autopsy. They just weren't thinking about every angle. I think they never expected a big deal to be made about the too-large undies, just like I think they never expected the fact that she had eaten pineapple that night before she died to be discovered. They may have staged this crime, they may have had ideas about what to cover up and how they needed this to look to LE, but I do not think they were running thoughts of every aspect of forensics in their heads that night.
So the original panties were removed and replaced with the size 12s from right there in the wrapped gifts in the basement. The rest of the new package of panties were hidden/removed from the house, as was the original panty she was wearing when she was killed. If that panty was part of a size 6 Bloomies set, then the rest of that set was removed as well.
If 6 other pairs of Bloomies panties in size 6 were found by LE, that would be a BIG issue- we'd have heard about it. They would for sure know it was fishy if all the rest of the set were size 6 and the pair on the body was size 12. They'd know for sure someone had removed the missing panties from the house.

 

[JMO8778]

No, and if pineapple had of been found in my daughter's stomach...and I believed that an intruder had fed it to her (as Patsy suggested), then I wouldn't put up wallpaper in my kitchen with PINEAPPLE all over it, after I moved to Atlanta, either. But THEY did. :waitasec:

..and the basement,and the painting studio,none of which seemed to bother them.

 

[JMO8778]

Humm... He did drink at the dinner at the Whites, correct? And was it true that he drank rather heavily the 25th after the deadline had come and gone? Or was that after he got to the Fernies???

(My brain is scrambling...Sorry...)

it was said to be after they'd left the house,at the F's; I do think someone had too much to drink at the R's party on the 23rd,promoting misbehavior,the 911 call,SS (apparently JR and Patsy were otherwise occupied) not opening the door to LE (only speaking to them through the speaker),and JB crying and saying she didn't feel pretty.it's too much to just be all a coincidence.could have been Dad P,since he left on standby the next day,but who knows.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I saw JR on Oprah and to me he looked 'smug.' That's the only word I can use to describe it. He knows they got away with JBR's murder, esp. now that Patsy died. I felt that Patsy was the one who probably 'snapped' and hit JBR and she was the culpable one, with JR helping to cover it up after the fact, IMHO.

Regardless of this 'touch DNA' which does NOT rise to the level of proof as would blood or semen, I do not think this new DNA proves the Ramsey's didn't do it. Why? Because touch DNA does not explain things like:

- The RN in Patsy's handwriting...a 3 page note
- The red fibers matching Patsy's sweater under the tape over JBR's mouth, and in other places connected to the crime.
- The pineapple
- The lies told
- Evidence of prior assault on JBR (possibly sexual)
- The way too big underwear being put on JBR...underwear that was tucked away in a drawer.
- The pad of paper with the 'practice' note verbiage engraved on it.

DNA doesn't do a thing about any of that and those things don't go away just because of someone's skin cells on some longjohns.

And while it might be tempting to do so, one cannot (and should not) dismiss all the other evidence collected and analyzed--the ransom note being perhaps one of the biggest smoking guns that lead you to the killer.

I always felt bad for Steve Thomas and even more so after reading his book. He tried so hard to keep the case on track.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes it was, IMHO. I believe the stager(s) did not think anyone would notice that the panties she was wearing were not her proper size. They thought they are girl's panties and that's the end of it. They were under her longjohns, for one, and under there it wasn't immediately apparent that they were too large for a child that size.
We here on the boards have the luxury of dissecting this case and every move the killer(s) made with 12 years of study behind us. That night, in the awful reality of what had happened, no one was even remotely thinking about what would happen when police were called and their child was removed to a morgue for autopsy. They just weren't thinking about every angle. I think they never expected a big deal to be made about the too-large undies, just like I think they never expected the fact that she had eaten pineapple that night before she died to be discovered. They may have staged this crime, they may have had ideas about what to cover up and how they needed this to look to LE, but I do not think they were running thoughts of every aspect of forensics in their heads that night.
So the original panties were removed and replaced with the size 12s from right there in the wrapped gifts in the basement. The rest of the new package of panties were hidden/removed from the house, as was the original panty she was wearing when she was killed. If that panty was part of a size 6 Bloomies set, then the rest of that set was removed as well.
If 6 other pairs of Bloomies panties in size 6 were found by LE, that would be a BIG issue- we'd have heard about it. They would for sure know it was fishy if all the rest of the set were size 6 and the pair on the body was size 12. They'd know for sure someone had removed the missing panties from the house.

DeeDee249,

So the original panties were removed and replaced with the size 12s from right there in the wrapped gifts in the basement. The rest of the new package of panties were hidden/removed from the house, as was the original panty she was wearing when she was killed. If that panty was part of a size 6 Bloomies set, then the rest of that set was removed as well.

So you think a pack of Bloomingdales size-12's and a Bloomingdales pack of size-6's may have been removed from the house?

I reckon board members on various sites may be in error here, I'll post some information on this shortly.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I saw JR on Oprah and to me he looked 'smug.' That's the only word I can use to describe it. He knows they got away with JBR's murder, esp. now that Patsy died. I felt that Patsy was the one who probably 'snapped' and hit JBR and she was the culpable one, with JR helping to cover it up after the fact, IMHO.

Regardless of this 'touch DNA' which does NOT rise to the level of proof as would blood or semen, I do not think this new DNA proves the Ramsey's didn't do it. Why? Because touch DNA does not explain things like:

- The RN in Patsy's handwriting...a 3 page note
- The red fibers matching Patsy's sweater under the tape over JBR's mouth, and in other places connected to the crime.
- The pineapple
- The lies told
- Evidence of prior assault on JBR (possibly sexual)
- The way too big underwear being put on JBR...underwear that was tucked away in a drawer.
- The pad of paper with the 'practice' note verbiage engraved on it.

DNA doesn't do a thing about any of that and those things don't go away just because of someone's skin cells on some longjohns.

And while it might be tempting to do so, one cannot (and should not) dismiss all the other evidence collected and analyzed--the ransom note being perhaps one of the biggest smoking guns that lead you to the killer.

I always felt bad for Steve Thomas and even more so after reading his book. He tried so hard to keep the case on track.

SleuthyGal,

- The way too big underwear being put on JBR...underwear that was tucked away in a drawer.

Not quite, since none was discovered in the drawer. The size-12's explicitly link Patsy to crime-scene. They are a huge red-flag!


.

 

[UKGuy]

When Patsy is being interviewed regarding the Bloomingdales, she states explicitly that the underwear JonBenet was wearing when found dead in the wine-cellar was purchased by herself! e.g. that underwear is size-12. She never states that she ever purchased a set of Bloomingdales size-6's. That is a board member assumption.

In the same interview Patsy then states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer, but that these were the pack intended for her niece Jenny. So if no contradiction was intended there should be 13 pairs of size-12's in JonBenet's panty drawer.

During the interview Patsy realizes that she has been caught out and starts to have recurring memory loss. Regardless she has stated she purchased one set of size-12's for JonBenet, who specifically requested them, and another set of size-12's for her niece Jenny. When asked would this mean any unopened set of size-12's should be lying about the house Patsy agrees, meaning indirectly that she is re-stating she purchased one set of size-12's for JonBenet and another for her niece Jenny. e.g. no size-6's!



Patsy states she purchased size-12's for JonBenet in November 1996.

18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start

19 with what - I will make it very simple for

20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you

21 in possession of or what do you know about

22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing

23 at the time she was found murdered?

24 A. I have heard that she had on a

25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

0078

1 Q. The underwear that she was

2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you

3 know where they come from as far as what

4 store?

5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.

6 Q. Who purchased those?

7 A. I did.

8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased

9 them?

10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.

11 Q. In the fall of 1996, how many

12 trips did you make to New York?

13 A. Two, I believe.

...
2 Q. Which of those two trips did you

3 purchase the Bloomi's?

4 A. The first trip.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

Patsy suggests she purchased two sets of Bloomingdales.

14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is

15 your best recollection that the purchase of

16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the

17 week, was something that you bought for her,

18 whether it was just I am buying underwear

19 for my kids or these are special, here's a

20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your

21 intention that she would wear those?

22 A. Well, I think that I bought a

23 package of the -- they came in a package of

24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

25 I think I bought a package to give to my

0081

1 niece.

2 Q. Which niece was that?

3 A. Jenny Davis.

4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do

5 you remember that they come in kind of a

6 plastic see-through plastic container.

7 A. Right.

Patsy has memory loss on the number of packs purchased.

0 Q. So if I understand you correctly,

11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your

12 niece, and one for JonBenet?

13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or

14 two.

15 Q. Do you remember what size they

16 were?

17 A. Not exactly.

Patsy states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.

21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to

22 understand is whether -- we are trying to

23 understand why she is wearing such a large

24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can

25 help us if you have a recollection of it.

0084

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought

5 these sometime in mid to early December, is

6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,

7 you bought them in November?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing

10 these? And I don't mean this specific day

11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you

12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in

13 this package of underpants and had been

14 wearing them since the trip to New York in

15 November?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the

18 laundry for the family, that is part of her

19 duties; is that correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash

22 clothes on occasion?

23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of

25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

0085

1 A. Not specifically.

Patsy re-states placing the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.

13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it

14 was, if it had caught your attention or came

15 to your attention, do you think you might

16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't

17 fit, put something on that fits, that is

18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,

19 had come to your attention --

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

0086

1 I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see

10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

Again Patsy re-states placing the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.

8 I think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

Patsy's memory loss becomes specific at this point.

5 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it

6 this way. Did you say you bought more than

7 one set of Bloomi's?

8 A. I can't remember.

9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?

10 A. I can't remember.

11 Q. Why is it that you remember

12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of

13 1996?

14 A. Because --

Patsy is told no size-12's were found in the panty drawer.

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you

2 aware that these were the size of panties

3 that she was wearing, and this has been

4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they

5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of

6 that?

7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.

8 Q. And how did you become aware of

9 that?

10 A. Something I read, I am sure.

11 Q. And I will just state a fact

12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties

13 taken out of, by the police, out of

14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is

15 that where she kept -

16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

17 Q. -- where you were describing that

18 they were just put in that drawer?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

25 A. I would say more like six to

0094

1 eight. There were probably some in there

2 that were too small.

3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?

4 A. Not typically, no.

Patsy is asked two packets or one?

2 Q. Okay. I am slightly confused,

13 and I would like this clarified. When I

14 first started to ask you about the purchase

15 of the panties in November, I got the

16 impression that you were somewhat unclear as

17 to whether you bought two sets or one.

18 In follow-up questions, I got the

19 impression that you felt confident that you

20 only bought one. Do you know?

21 A. I really can't remember.

22 Q. Do you recall that you did -- you

23 never mailed this pair out to --

24 A. Jenny, yes.

25 Q. Okay. So if there was an

0112

1 unopened package, it would have been left in

2 the house?

3 A. Yes.

 

[JMO8778]

great,UK,just great.you really spelled it all out there for us

 

[JMO8778]

I saw JR on Oprah and to me he looked 'smug.' That's the only word I can use to describe it.

he does to me,too.he's confident he got away w his part in the crime,and he appears all too arrogant for it,IMO.

 

[Ames]

I saw JR on Oprah and to me he looked 'smug.' That's the only word I can use to describe it. He knows they got away with JBR's murder, esp. now that Patsy died. I felt that Patsy was the one who probably 'snapped' and hit JBR and she was the culpable one, with JR helping to cover it up after the fact, IMHO.

Regardless of this 'touch DNA' which does NOT rise to the level of proof as would blood or semen, I do not think this new DNA proves the Ramsey's didn't do it. Why? Because touch DNA does not explain things like:

- The RN in Patsy's handwriting...a 3 page note
- The red fibers matching Patsy's sweater under the tape over JBR's mouth, and in other places connected to the crime.
- The pineapple
- The lies told
- Evidence of prior assault on JBR (possibly sexual)
- The way too big underwear being put on JBR...underwear that was tucked away in a drawer.
- The pad of paper with the 'practice' note verbiage engraved on it.

DNA doesn't do a thing about any of that and those things don't go away just because of someone's skin cells on some longjohns.

And while it might be tempting to do so, one cannot (and should not) dismiss all the other evidence collected and analyzed--the ransom note being perhaps one of the biggest smoking guns that lead you to the killer.

I always felt bad for Steve Thomas and even more so after reading his book. He tried so hard to keep the case on track.

Exactly! The things that you mentioned (and there are many more) are many HUGE pieces to the puzzle, that when finished...is a picture of the Ramseys. The Touch DNA is only a one small piece of a puzzle, that when finished, may OR MAY NOT show an unknown intruder. If I were putting together a puzzle of the killer, I would want as many pieces to fit as possible. ONE is just not good enough.

I felt bad for ST too! All he wanted was justice.

 

[Ames]

When Patsy is being interviewed regarding the Bloomingdales, she states explicitly that the underwear JonBenet was wearing when found dead in the wine-cellar was purchased by herself! e.g. that underwear is size-12. She never states that she ever purchased a set of Bloomingdales size-6's. That is a board member assumption.

In the same interview Patsy then states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer, but that these were the pack intended for her niece Jenny. So if no contradiction was intended there should be 13 pairs of size-12's in JonBenet's panty drawer.

During the interview Patsy realizes that she has been caught out and starts to have recurring memory loss. Regardless she has stated she purchased one set of size-12's for JonBenet, who specifically requested them, and another set of size-12's for her niece Jenny. When asked would this mean any unopened set of size-12's should be lying about the house Patsy agrees, meaning indirectly that she is re-stating she purchased one set of size-12's for JonBenet and another for her niece Jenny. e.g. no size-6's!



Patsy states she purchased size-12's for JonBenet in November 1996.






Patsy suggests she purchased two sets of Bloomingdales.


Patsy has memory loss on the number of packs purchased.


Patsy states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.


Patsy re-states placing the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.


Again Patsy re-states placing the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.


Patsy's memory loss becomes specific at this point.


Patsy is told no size-12's were found in the panty drawer.


Patsy is asked two packets or one?

Awesome work UKGuy!!! Thanks for taking the time to post this. Why in the WORLD would Patsy purchase two sets of size 12 underwear? Common sense says that if she bought two packs, one for Jenny, one for JB...that one of the packs would be size 12 and the other pack, a size 6. She is such a liar. She is really good at having memory loss when she chooses.

 

[UKGuy]

Awesome work UKGuy!!! Thanks for taking the time to post this. Why in the WORLD would Patsy purchase two sets of size 12 underwear? Common sense says that if she bought two packs, one for Jenny, one for JB...that one of the packs would be size 12 and the other pack, a size 6. She is such a liar. She is really good at having memory loss when she chooses.

Ames,
Thanks, nearly everyone assumes what you say should have occurred, e.g.

Common sense says that if she bought two packs, one for Jenny, one for JB...that one of the packs would be size 12 and the other pack, a size 6.

But Patsy is explicit on this one, she says she purchased the size-12's that JonBenet was wearing when found dead! When further questioned she states they were chosen by JonBenet:

...
2 Q. Which of those two trips did you

3 purchase the Bloomi's?

4 A. The first trip.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

What probably happened was Patsy realized telling the interviewer that she purchased size-12's for JonBenet did not sound right. So she amended her evidence by restating the size-12's as being those of her niece Jenny, but the interviewer had thought it all through and asked Patsy :

22 Q. Do you recall that you did -- you

23 never mailed this pair out to --

24 A. Jenny, yes.

25 Q. Okay. So if there was an

0112

1 unopened package, it would have been left in

2 the house?

3 A. Yes.

e.g. the interviewer is implicitly assuming Patsy's first statement is the correct one, e.g. that JonBenet was wearing size-12's selected by herself and purchased by Patsy. So he then asks Patsy the obvious Okay. So if there was an unopened package, it would have been left in the house?, Patsy has to answer Yes, becuase she knows she said she purchased two packets of size-12's!

So what the interview tells you is that Patsy probably purchased one set of size-12's for her niece Jenny, a pair of which were then used to redress JonBenet, but crucially Patsy was ignorant about this until she read about it in the media?

So Patsy is lying for someone else, and doing so not aware that the remaining size-12's are missing.


Its possible that on the November trip she did purchase Bloomingdales size-6's for JonBenet, and replaced that with size-12's purchased for Jenny in her version of events, even if the investigators discover Bloomingdale size-6's in her panty drawer, proving when they were purchased might be impossible, although if a Wednesday pair are missing, then you can link this to size-12 Wednesday pair.

Basically Patsy was caught out big time, she stated she purchased two packs of Bloomingdales size-12's yet none were discovered in her house! As I've suggested already, after returning a pack of size-12's, she either returns crime-scene evidence or claims these must be the set purchased for Jenny?


Now you know Patsy never redressed JonBenet in those size-12's!



.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Werent' there any records by Bloomingdales to show the purchase of these panties? (or the return of any panties?) Patsy seems the type to have used credit cards and not cash.

 

[BBB167893]

Werent' there any records by Bloomingdales to show the purchase of these panties? (or the return of any panties?) Patsy seems the type to have used credit cards and not cash.

No need. Everyone knew she bought them.

 

[JMO8778]

I just have a very hard time believing that John was molesting JB that night, and Patsy caught them, and either hit JB by accident while aiming at John, or on purpose. I mean, why in the world would he do that...with Patsy and Burke up, and an early trip the next morning? And I do believe that JB was probably previously molested by someone...probably her grandfather (Grand Paugh), but not John. I will go to my grave believing that a bed wetting incident led to this...not intentionally though.

I had remembered reading this,and I found it again;not saying I think either did or didn't happen,just that I thought it worth a second look..Judith Phillips Miller (JP below)..I know she posts on FFJ sometimes, and she seems very credible,IMO,that's why the IDI's like to try and discredit her.
Anyway,if Patsy did leave the house that night,and JR put the kids to bed,perhaps something amiss did occur bf she returned,and she came in on the middle of it;also...the dna could be that of her encounter,if she was indeed seeing someone else.Not that this person would have done it,only that his dna would likely be on Patsy:


JP: yeah, women involved with John. They were hinting at an affair. I said, Why did you ask me the names of these women? They said, well,it's believed that JR had had quite a few affairs, not only in Atlanta but also here in Boulder. Do you know of anything? I knew, really none.(Laughs). John has such a devious quality about himself there was noway that he would let anybody know about his trysts whether they were real or not. But I found it interesting the line of, the police line of questions and how it went. Then they asked me if I knew about Patsy, if I saw her anger, if I saw her lose her temper and if I knew if she had ever had any relationships here in Boulder, you know questions like, personality type questions.

Mame: did she?

JP: not that I know of, but I have been told by a friend by a friend of mine who is much more deeply involved in this story than I am, that she met with a woman in Denver that had a health club that had played racquet ball with a, um, ah, I'm trying to think he was. Not an account…..

Mame: an investment person?

JP: An investment person. Yeah, and according to her friend that she knows very well, this investment person who is a man had said that he had a relationship with PR that night.

Mame: of the murder?

JP: yeah, that they had come home from the party at the Whites and Patsy had left the home, and had attended a party where they had a fling going.

Mame: do you believe that?

JP: (couldn't understand)

Mame: How do you know?

JP: How do you know? It's not that I don't disbelieve it, it's like…. You know???

Mame: that's the story that Jann Scott sort of threw out, was that was the line of thinking that they had up with that this boyfriend had come back.

JP: yeah, well, I'm trying to investigate that. I have to do it very carefully.

Mame: I hope you'll keep us informed.

JP: I will. I have to be very careful, because I'm sure that she under any circumstances, that this man was apparently a father of the children where JonBenet and Burke attended school.

Mame: your school?

JP: their school. At that time they switched from the public school, to I .. Can't remember the name of it. They were a special satellite school.

mame: a magnet school.

JP: A magnet school. Patsy left, Susan Stine left and Roxy left and took their kids with them.

Mame: a magnet school

JP: a magnet school.

Mame: so it was apparently a father,

JP: yeah, who he did not, … he was married, he did not want anyone to know even if, this is true, can you imagine that he is willing to keep his secret, secret?

Mame: yeah, I can't imagine with all the scrutiny that, … but, you don't know.

JP: uh, huh.

Mame: that's fascinating.

JP: yes, it is fascinating.

Mame: But did you hear that there are good sources that you hear this from are sound enough that it's worth pursuing, that it's worth investigating… (couldn't understand)

JP: there is not one leaf that I would leave unturned in this particular case. I try not to have an opinion of something until I've investigated it further.So, I believe that this is something worth following up on. But I want to be real careful, because if this is true, this man is keeping an incredible secret. So, that's .. so I went from, and I think at the point where the more information that I obtained, especially about the ransom note when Tom and I and our relationship started. He sat down with me at length and showed me what his analysis, what his handwriting analysis that he did for Darnay Hoffman.

Mame: And it's like.. (couldn't understand) terminally (couldn't understand) finance, (couldn't understand) he was called upon.

JP: right, right.

Mame: to do an analysis

JP: (at same time) a handwriting analysis for Darnay Hoffman years ago.And he was one of the few handwriting analyzers that was willing to come out very strongly about that Patsy wrote the ransom note. He did not soft step, didn't fudge at all, which I think a lot of them have a tendency to do, but he really strongly believes, and still to this day believes that Patsy was the author of the ransom note. So you know we would have many conversations about it and that sort of was like the icing on the cake for me.

Mame: um, hum.. and when was that in your timeline approximately?

JP: let's see, probably, when the early spring of 98.

Mame: OK, so about a year and half, a year and a quarter after.

JP: yeah,

Mame: OK. Let me mention what I never knew, I sort of picked this up on Dateline NBC that you did. Your personal opinion is there could have been some incest going on.

JP: yeah, the reason why I believe that is, a couple of things. First of all, this ahhh, to see JonBenet prance around in her very sexually revealing outfits and just the way that she presented herself was shocking for me. I felt that there was something more there than that the eye.. it was just ..

Mame: But at the time you saw her prancing you didn't feel it? You didn't (couldn't understand) the activity, but later…. When you look back or…

JP: no, no, the first time I saw those films on television. I didn't see them while she was alive but..

Mame: but you didn't attend the pagents..

JP: right.

Mame: you had no way of knowing.

JP: right, so the first time I actually saw the footage, was right after her death, right after her murder, and I was shocked. I was absolutely shocked. I thought I do ,, this is not the little girl that I knew at all. It just was shocking.

Mame: sort of like a secret life.

JP: yeah, like another person. Actually another person that I didn't even know. The way that she pranced around and smiled and so sexual,adult sexual moves.

Mame: they really were sexual

JP: yeah

Mame: what else does (couldn't understand) daughter, but that is not a typical

JP: yeah, it's not Shirley Temple on the good ship lollipop, this is something very different, very different and there was a red flag, an intuitive flag that was, I, I just thought this is.. There's something wrong here. That was the first thing. Then as I have tried to put the pieces together that why I felt that Patsy, the person Patsy, the mother Patsy could have ever murdered her child, which I believe that she did. What would compel a mother to do this? And the only theory that makes any sense to me, is the theory that she found John sexually abusing JonBenet that night. That to me makes the only sense.

Mame: because you can't picture her then, bedwetting or…..

JP: no, no, no, no, no. The only thing that makes any sense of her behavior, was she quote" lost it".

Mame: and you think she was losing it towards John, not JonBenet.

JP: I think Patsy suspected it for some time. I think it may have started when JonBenet's hair was dyed blonde because that summer Patsy came home with a big ring on her finger and she was different and so was JonBenet. JonBenet's physical appearance.

 

[SleuthyGal]

No need. Everyone knew she bought them.

How did they know exactly? On what day did she purchase them? Which sizes and how many of which sizes? Did she return 1 set? On which day was that? Hence my question about records from the Bloomingdales computers and not from PR's interviews, LE searches or people's recollections.

A printed receipt or a computerized printout or something that proves what was purchased and when (or returned) is what I'm interested in knowing about.

 

[angelwngs]

LE has not revealed all of their evidence in the case. Many 'questions' remain unanswered as to what they have, what they did or did not investigate and what questions were asked of certain people along with their answers to those questions.

We only have what we have.

Steve Thomas' book, The R's Book and Perfect Town Perfect Murder, acandyrose website, Forums For Justice website and the archives here are the best sources of reference.

 

[UKGuy]

Werent' there any records by Bloomingdales to show the purchase of these panties? (or the return of any panties?) Patsy seems the type to have used credit cards and not cash.

SleuthyGal,
There should have been, but since Patsy is admitting to purchasing the size-12's for JonBenet at her request, then how many more may have been purchased is a moot point. Patsy with her version of events linked herself directly to crime-scene evidence.

As Ames says common sense suggests Bloomingdale size-6's may have been purchased for JonBenet and size-12's for Jenny. Yet Bloomingdale size-6's play no part in Patsy's version of events, so any missing pair of Wednesday size-6's can be factored in to a Wednesday size-6's swap for a Wednesday size-12's theory.

You can see JonBenet on xmas-morning with a FAO Schwartz wrapped gift to her left.

This FAO Schwartz gift wrapping paper was on the gifts recovered from the basement. Some people suggest that the size-12's wrapped in similar paper were unwrapped and used to redress JonBenet. Yet the FAO Schwartz wrapped gifts were purchased by Patsy and mailed from New York during her December trip, when no children were present, since the gifts were intended as birthday gifts for Burke, and the size-12's were purchased in November.


.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Who do you think dressed JB in those size 12 panties? I don't believe she put them on herself, do you? The way I understood the theory...is that JB had a bedwetting accident and that was what allegedly caused the 'rage' incident leading to her death. And to cover up the bedwetting incident she was changed into a pair of size 12 'Wednesday' panties.

Frankly, I can't follow the whole "what Pasty purchased when and where and where it was stored/not stored/returned/not returned" explanations that go into great depth on this site. I start to read about it and I lose the trail of explanation because my mind is just not following the various twists 'n turns and juxtapositions with PR's interviews and lies.

So I just go back to the original theory, simplistic though it may be. Someone put size 12 panties on JBR. Those panties were too big for her by a factor of 2. Evidence of staging. Staging = no intruder. No intruder = someone inside that house who knew where JBR panties were kept dressed her. Therefore someone in the family killed her. And my vote is that it was PR.

In fact, I think perhaps one of the biggest challenges is keeping it simple. The Ramsey's don't want the story to be kept simple. But it really is if you refuse to get mired down in the flotsam/jetsam of the case and look at just the things that are tied to the crime AND can be proved to be a part of that 12 - 24 hour time period.

- The THREE PAGE ransom note using PR language and using PR-like handwriting
- The 'practice' ransom note
- The fibers on/in JBR and under the tape
- The evidence of staging
- The behavior(s) of the family
- Lies told
- The pineapple in JBR's digestional tract

So that means you forget about using the touch DNA because it doesn't tell you WHEN it got there nor HOW it got there.

And that means you disregard the mystery shoe print in the basement for the same reason--don't know when it was made.

And you only look at the things that you CAN verify as fact AND in a time period you can absolutely relate to the crime itself.

 

[UKGuy]

Who do you think dressed JB in those size 12 panties? I don't believe she put them on herself, do you? The way I understood the theory...is that JB had a bedwetting accident and that was what allegedly caused the 'rage' incident leading to her death. And to cover up the bedwetting incident she was changed into a pair of size 12 'Wednesday' panties.

Frankly, I can't follow the whole "what Pasty purchased when and where and where it was stored/not stored/returned/not returned" explanations that go into great depth on this site. I start to read about it and I lose the trail of explanation because my mind is just not following the various twists 'n turns and juxtapositions with PR's interviews and lies.

So I just go back to the original theory, simplistic though it may be. Someone put size 12 panties on JBR. Those panties were too big for her by a factor of 2. Evidence of staging. Staging = no intruder. No intruder = someone inside that house who knew where JBR panties were kept dressed her. Therefore someone in the family killed her. And my vote is that it was PR.

In fact, I think perhaps one of the biggest challenges is keeping it simple. The Ramsey's don't want the story to be kept simple. But it really is if you refuse to get mired down in the flotsam/jetsam of the case and look at just the things that are tied to the crime AND can be proved to be a part of that 12 - 24 hour time period.

- The THREE PAGE ransom note using PR language and using PR-like handwriting
- The 'practice' ransom note
- The fibers on/in JBR and under the tape
- The evidence of staging
- The behavior(s) of the family
- Lies told
- The pineapple in JBR's digestional tract

So that means you forget about using the touch DNA because it doesn't tell you WHEN it got there nor HOW it got there.

And that means you disregard the mystery shoe print in the basement for the same reason--don't know when it was made.

And you only look at the things that you CAN verify as fact AND in a time period you can absolutely relate to the crime itself.

SleuthyGal,

The way I understood the theory...is that JB had a bedwetting accident and that was what allegedly caused the 'rage' incident leading to her death. And to cover up the bedwetting incident she was changed into a pair of size 12 'Wednesday' panties.

Thats one theory, another theory is that she was molested and the size-12's were placed on her after the size-6's containing incriminating forensic evidence were removed. Another theory which combines elements of the latter two, is that there was a bedwetting incident, but that the sexual assault and size-12's are on her to mask prior abuse? The clue once again are the size-12's, since no intruder staged or real would consider redressing JonBenet.

The timeline for purchasing the size-12's is simple, they were purchased in November but the Xmas-Gifts were purchased in December and wrapped in FAO Schwartz paper then mailed out to the Ramsey's who then hid them down in the basement, but some people think that the gifts in the basement also contained the size-12's?

See in bottom left of this picture, in the wine-cellar, the Schwartz wrapped gift

A more complete picture:

Who do you think dressed JB in those size 12 panties? I don't believe she put them on herself, do you?

I do not think Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, the interview evidence demonstrates this, nor do I think JonBenet redressed her self.

I reckon it was a male member of the Ramsey family who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, only a guy could make such a dumb mistake, Patsy would have known to use a pair of size-6's.


.