New article but no new news

  • #21
Thanks for that great post Nuisanceposter,

As far as the answer to this goes: "So I'm left asking - who dressed her in those larger size undies, and why?"

It was probably the person that took off her dirty ones after she was killed. They probably wanted to keep them.


Scandi
 
  • #22
You're more than welcome.

As for keeping the undies JonBenet had on, that's only if you buy into the intruder theory. I have some serious questions about that - why would an intruder even bother to go seek out another pair of undies for the child he just got done sexually assaulting and strangling to death, risking being heard going back up to her bedroom and going through her drawer?

If he wanted the undies she had on for a trophy, fine, but the idea that he would take the time and the risk to go back up to her bedroom two floors above him and rifle through her drawer, open a brand new package of underwear (when there would have been some 15 other pairs not in a package lying in the drawer) and bring them down to redress JonBenet simply defies logic.

I don't believe for a second that JonBenet put those underwear on herself. They would have been so huge that they would have been very uncomfortable to wear, bagging down to her knees in the crotch area, and she didn't have enough hips and butt to actually hold the undies up - they would have been sliding down her body as she moved. Patsy also mentions changing JB into the long johns, and she certainly would have noticed her daughter wearing undies so huge they gaped open and left exposed the very section of the body they are supposed to cover. Not only that, but they would have been pulled off along with the velvet pants JB had been wearing - there wasn't anything to hold them on her body as the pants were pulled off. Patsy didn't notice any of that, so unless she was dressing JB in the long johns in complete darkness, JonBenet was NOT wearing those size 12s when she was put to bed.

That means the person who redressed her put them on her.

When you add to that the interview in which Patsy is asked about the size 12/14 undies, and it becomes obvious that she is being vague about them on purpose when she's not contradicting herself, it seems like Patsy is trying to cover something up. I think she knows exactly how those undies got on JonBenet's body.
 
  • #23
Thank you for the above post, but I do beleive IMHP, that JB may of been or attemp made to put her to bed in big pull ups,& then to cover the pull ups with the bigger panties, & this may of led to patsy's RAGE!
This also may be why the Rams have to stick with the story she was fast asleep when they arrived home,that story was made up to cover something.That lie about her being a sleep was a big cover up ,but what did it cover up?
In the time line of staging this was the first of staging,then came the big panties, so of course they had to know nothing of how they became part of the crime, I beleive JB had no smaller under wear on as she was being prepared for bed,just big pull ups & big panties over them ,the smaller one were in the landray basket, because they had all ready been pulled off , & Patsy was attempting to put the night time gear on her little girl ,which was pull ups & big panties, & a battle insued & JB was injured.
 
  • #24
I've never heard that before. If their reasoning for NOT testing it was because there was such a small amount, and they didn't want to use it all up, well, then what would they be saving it for if NOT for a DNA test?????

What Wickman actually said was their was too little to test for ethnicity, so that whole "Caucasian" bit doesn't fly.

I thought I read that the DNA on JBR's underwear matched DNA under her nails. Wouldn't that mean DNA tests were done? I heard the test may have been botched (nail clippers may not have been cleaned prior to clipping JBR's nails). I've heard that various people tested via DNA were not a match. Since these are all things I've heard, sometimes beyond here-say I don't know what to think.

NP beat me to it!

LINASK! Always nice to see you! Jeff Shapiro gave you and I a late Christmas present:

It's Time for the FBI to Take Over the JonBenet Case
Tuesday , December 26, 2006
By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro
It has been 10 years since John Ramsey found his 6-year old child, , dead in the basement of their Boulder home. Despite the fact that police conducted an exhaustive investigation, the case officially remains unsolved.Among the more notable police officers who investigated the Ramsey murder was former detective Steve Thomas, a veteran police officer who had received over a hundred commendations. Thomas, who was logged in as having worked more overtime hours on the case than any other police officer, resigned nearly two years into the investigation and publicly announced that he believed JonBenet's mother, Patsy Ramsey, was responsible for the little girl's death. Although authorities never officially commented on Thomas' argument, many law enforcement sources have confirmed that Thomas was merely revealing the conclusion of the Boulder Police Department's investigation. After former District Attorney Alex Hunter convened a grand jury to investigate the case further in 1998, the law enforcement community's suspicion of Patsy Ramsey increased, but Hunter decided not to file charges because he did not believe there was enough evidence to obtain a winning verdict. Despite the fact that a panel of pediatric experts concluded that JonBenet was a victim of long-term sexual abuse, current District Attorney Mary Lacy publicly announced in 2003 that she believed the little girl was murdered by an intruder. Her theory stems from the fact that minuscule particles of foreign DNA were found in JonBenet's underpants — DNA that renowned forensic expert Henry Lee believes is the result of contamination and totally unrelated to the crime. Lacy was so convinced an intruder committed the crime that she arrested an otherwise innocent man earlier this year and charged him with the murder. Only a few days after extraditing 41-year-old John Mark Karr from Thailand, forensic tests prompted Lacy to drop charges against the man, leaving the case cold once again. The most revealing fact that came from the Karr debacle was that there were several details in his arrest warrant that didn't add up. Lacy's primary reason for arresting Karr was that he allegedly had inside knowledge of the case that only top investigators and the killer could know. But by the time the warrant was made public, it turned out that the "inside knowledge" had been widely published in local newspapers and supermarket tabloids. As a result, Lacy quickly came under fire by a number of law enforcement officials and media commentators. Among the many officials who quietly expressed criticism were federal agents who have repeatedly advised Boulder investigators that they suspect Patsy Ramsey and do not subscribe to the "intruder theory." Their suspicions stem from years of analysis and comparison of Patsy's handwriting with the text and handwriting of the three-page ransom note found in the Ramsey home. Although the Boulder Police Department and former DA Hunter did an effective job investigating JonBenet's murder, Lacy's blind faith that the crime was committed by an intruder now makes it virtually impossible for the case to move forward under her leadership. The FBI is in a position to assign highly skilled investigators who have spent decades specializing in child murders to JonBenet's case. Federal prosecutors who have the financial and legal backing of the United States government can effectively consider a long-term strategy that will not be impeded by local taxpayers or politicians. The murder of JonBenet Ramsey remains one of the most heartbreaking and cruel child murders ever in America. She was known in her community as a warm, loving child who showed unique signs of talent, intelligence and even compassion. Her murder, like all child murders, is a tragedy that should not be forgotten. On Tuesday morning, it was reported that Mary Lacy has requested another $40,000 to hire a new investigator to research the Ramsey case. Unfortunately, history has proven that she is not equipped to succeed. It's time for Lacy to relinquish control of the Ramsey case — along with her ego — and invite the federal government to take over. JonBenet deserves nothing short of the very best. It's time to turn this case over to the FBI.

Can you dig it?

Can you DIG it?

CAN YOU DIG IT?!
 
  • #25
SuperDave said:
What Wickman actually said was their was too little to test for ethnicity, so that whole "Caucasian" bit doesn't fly.



NP beat me to it!

LINASK! Always nice to see you! Jeff Shapiro gave you and I a late Christmas present:



Can you dig it?

Can you DIG it?

CAN YOU DIG IT?!
You know that I can.
 
  • #26
Nuisanceposter said:
You're more than welcome.

As for keeping the undies JonBenet had on, that's only if you buy into the intruder theory. I have some serious questions about that - why would an intruder even bother to go seek out another pair of undies for the child he just got done sexually assaulting and strangling to death, risking being heard going back up to her bedroom and going through her drawer?

If he wanted the undies she had on for a trophy, fine, but the idea that he would take the time and the risk to go back up to her bedroom two floors above him and rifle through her drawer, open a brand new package of underwear (when there would have been some 15 other pairs not in a package lying in the drawer) and bring them down to redress JonBenet simply defies logic.

I don't believe for a second that JonBenet put those underwear on herself. They would have been so huge that they would have been very uncomfortable to wear, bagging down to her knees in the crotch area, and she didn't have enough hips and butt to actually hold the undies up - they would have been sliding down her body as she moved. Patsy also mentions changing JB into the long johns, and she certainly would have noticed her daughter wearing undies so huge they gaped open and left exposed the very section of the body they are supposed to cover. Not only that, but they would have been pulled off along with the velvet pants JB had been wearing - there wasn't anything to hold them on her body as the pants were pulled off. Patsy didn't notice any of that, so unless she was dressing JB in the long johns in complete darkness, JonBenet was NOT wearing those size 12s when she was put to bed.

That means the person who redressed her put them on her.

When you add to that the interview in which Patsy is asked about the size 12/14 undies, and it becomes obvious that she is being vague about them on purpose when she's not contradicting herself, it seems like Patsy is trying to cover something up. I think she knows exactly how those undies got on JonBenet's body.

Nuisanceposter,

If he wanted the undies she had on for a trophy, fine, but the idea that he would take the time and the risk to go back up to her bedroom two floors above him and rifle through her drawer, open a brand new package of underwear (when there would have been some 15 other pairs not in a package lying in the drawer) and bring them down to redress JonBenet simply defies logic.

JonBenet's size-6 underwear was kept in the bathroom in a drawer.

Its on record that the size-12's were in a dresser drawer in JonBenet's bedroom.

Why someone elses xmas present is kept in JonBenet's bedroom dresser is beyond me.

Even if it is a re-allocated xmas present, they are miles to big for JonBenet!

imo they were either downstairs in the basement already packaged, waiting to be parceled up, or were upstairs in Patsy's bedroom somewhere, JonBenet has no need for size-12 underwear.

The missing size-12's were handed in years later by the Ramseys, so their original location is in doubt!



.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
999
Total visitors
1,132

Forum statistics

Threads
632,404
Messages
18,626,028
Members
243,140
Latest member
raezofsunshine83
Back
Top