No intruder?

[UKGuy]

Unless that's them on the floor of the wine cellar where they were gathered up in the blanket when it was taken off her bed to wrap her in. You know, the pink object, the same colour as the pj top that was still on the bed, and that we have seen in the pictures on Christmas morning.

MurriFlower,

Patsy identifies the pink object as the barbie nightgown in her interview.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Patsy identifies the pink object as the barbie nightgown in her interview.


.

Hmm. I think she identified an object in a photo in a plastic evidence bag as a barbie nightgown. I'm not sure she looked at this photo of the white blanket and the pink "garment" at all. Can you post that part of the interview again so we can see.

 

[SunnieRN]

Forget it.

 

[Ames]

Unless that's them on the floor of the wine cellar where they were gathered up in the blanket when it was taken off her bed to wrap her in. You know, the pink object, the same colour as the pj top that was still on the bed, and that we have seen in the pictures on Christmas morning.

That pink "thing" in the picture next to the blanket..is much to big, or long...to be a pair of PJ bottoms for a six year old girl. It looks more like a blanket to me. If that was them...wouldn't it have been listed on the "taken into evidence list"?

 

[MurriFlower]

That pink "thing" in the picture next to the blanket..is much to big, or long...to be a pair of PJ bottoms for a six year old girl. It looks more like a blanket to me. If that was them...wouldn't it have been listed on the "taken into evidence list"?

That's been said a lot on here lately. I don't know that it is, but it's hard to get an idea of the size without some bench mark to compare it with.

Let's just say that the blanket was wrapped around JBR, with her head/shoulders and feet sticking out. Those two folds on the blanket in the foreground is where her legs were. So do you still think it's too big?

 

[SunnieRN]

There is one thing that is useful in relationship to size. This is a blanket from a twin sized bed. That can be a useful tool to determine the size of other objects in the picture. In using this relationship to judge the size or amount of material, it looks like more than what would be in a slim 6 year olds pj bottoms.

 

[MurriFlower]

There is one thing that is useful in relationship to size. This is a blanket from a twin sized bed. That can be a useful tool to determine the size of other objects in the picture. In using this relationship to judge the size or amount of material, it looks like more than what would be in a slim 6 year olds pj bottoms.

Ok, well you obviously don't think it's the pyjamas. That's what it looks like to me. The part where the legs would have been wrapped look just about the right size for the pink object to fit on them. I think though, this has more to do with your RDI theory than anything. If it's the PJ bottoms, then that means the blanket came from the bed not out of the dryer. Then it's likely she was taken from her bed wrapped up in the blanket. That means it's probable that an IDI did it not her parents/brother. This is why I don't always think the RDI on this forum are open minded enough to evaluate these types of clues without looking first to see if it fits their theory(s). If not, they look for another answer to fit the evidence, or lack of it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Ok, well you obviously don't think it's the pyjamas. That's what it looks like to me. The part where the legs would have been wrapped look just about the right size for the pink object to fit on them. I think though, this has more to do with your RDI theory than anything. If it's the PJ bottoms, then that means the blanket came from the bed not out of the dryer. Then it's likely she was taken from her bed wrapped up in the blanket. That means it's probable that an IDI did it not her parents/brother. This is why I don't always think the RDI on this forum are open minded enough to evaluate these types of clues without looking first to see if it fits their theory(s). If not, they look for another answer to fit the evidence, or lack of it.

my bold

I thought that PR spelling 'advise' wrong in both her right and left exemplars showed deliberation. Thats how she spells advise. Its just one word and so it is very subtle. Nobody discussed this anywhere for years. Yet when RDI is finally shown this subtle difference, the answer is made to fit the evidence: she deliberately misspelled to throw off investigators who never even noticed! Or she forgot how to spell, or someone told her how to spell it. Anything but the most obvious: two different writers.

The clothing, blanket, tape, and 2nd ligature would be high on the list of things a kidnapper would need to move a living JBR to a car in sub-freezing weather.

 

[MurriFlower]

my bold

I thought that PR spelling 'advise' wrong in both her right and left exemplars showed deliberation. Thats how she spells advise. Its just one word and so it is very subtle. Nobody discussed this anywhere for years. Yet when RDI is finally shown this subtle difference, the answer is made to fit the evidence: she deliberately misspelled to throw off investigators who never even noticed! Or she forgot how to spell, or someone told her how to spell it. Anything but the most obvious: two different writers.

The clothing, blanket, tape, and 2nd ligature would be high on the list of things a kidnapper would need to move a living JBR to a car in sub-freezing weather.

The clothing, blanket, tape, and 2nd ligature would be high on the list of things a kidnapper would need to move a living JBR to a car in sub-freezing weather.

My bold

What clothing do you mean? The Pj bottoms or some other clothing? The 2nd ligature??

 

[SunnieRN]

Ok, well you obviously don't think it's the pyjamas. That's what it looks like to me. The part where the legs would have been wrapped look just about the right size for the pink object to fit on them. I think though, this has more to do with your RDI theory than anything. If it's the PJ bottoms, then that means the blanket came from the bed not out of the dryer. Then it's likely she was taken from her bed wrapped up in the blanket. That means it's probable that an IDI did it not her parents/brother. This is why I don't always think the RDI on this forum are open minded enough to evaluate these types of clues without looking first to see if it fits their theory(s). If not, they look for another answer to fit the evidence, or lack of it.

MF, I will ignore your sarcasm and deal with the issue at hand. Did you forget that Patsy stated she couldn't find the pj bottoms on JonBenets bed and therefore she put the white long johns on JonBenet? If Patsy couldn't find them in her own house, in her daughters room, how would it make it MORE possible that it was an IDI? Also why does this show that the blanket came from the bed vs the dryer? Was this even part of my post that you are responding to?

Yes, no one knows exactly what happened, but having an opinion doesn't make someone closed minded. It means they have an opinion.

Opinion:[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion[/ame]

Since you seem to enjoy wiki links so much lately.

 

[MurriFlower]

MF, I will ignore your sarcasm and deal with the issue at hand. Did you forget that Patsy stated she couldn't find the pj bottoms on JonBenets bed and therefore she put the white long johns on JonBenet? If Patsy couldn't find them in her own house, in her daughters room, how would it make it MORE possible that it was an IDI? Also why does this show that the blanket came from the bed vs the dryer? Was this even part of my post that you are responding to?

Yes, no one knows exactly what happened, but having an opinion doesn't make someone closed minded. It means they have an opinion.

Opinion:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

Since you seem to enjoy wiki links so much lately.

There was NO SARCASM. I'm not sure what you mean. So I will ignore your attempt to make me into the 'bad guy' in every exchange and address the issue.

I accept that you do not agree that it could be the pj bottoms. The pj bottoms could have been wrapped in the blanket because it came from the bed and when PR was looking for them, she didn't look in the folds of the blanket, or in the bed, but in the bathroom. The top of the pjs were on the bed also, (under the pillow?) so this seems to be logical.

There was an accepted RDI theory (often stated as fact) that the blanket was in the dryer and that was where PR found it to wrap her dead daughter in after murdering her, because, well, (they asked each other) who but a mother would do this??

So, I am saying that the IDI took the blanket when he took JBR from the bed. As HOTYH said, it would be necessary to keep a 'kidnapped JBR' warm, so this makes sense. There was no blanket on her bed, so again this agrees.

We all have opinions, but RDI has a tendency to ignore anything that doesn't agree with this theory, and make up details (eg the blanket in the dryer, for which there is no evidence) to back up their theory. At the same time, DNA evidence pointing to an IDI is trivialised as something transferred from a door handle/parcel/toilet helper. This happens here daily. If you are the exception to this, then I have included you in the RDI behaviour by mistake.

 

[claudicici]

the nightgown being stuck to the blanket and the blanket coming out of the dryer was a statement by LHP,the housekeeper,wasn't it?

 

[MurriFlower]

the nightgown being stuck to the blanket and the blanket coming out of the dryer was a statement by LHP,the housekeeper,wasn't it?

Ah, the housekeeper. I think she also said PR confided in her about personal matters and asked her for 'bedroom' advice as well LOL.

 

[UKGuy]

Hmm. I think she identified an object in a photo in a plastic evidence bag as a barbie nightgown. I'm not sure she looked at this photo of the white blanket and the pink "garment" at all. Can you post that part of the interview again so we can see.

MurriFlower,

You are not sure? Well lets reassure you, close inspection of the interview, should reveal that Patsy was shown both a picture of the blanket and pink object in the wine-cellar, and a picture of the pink object in an evidence bag.

Tom Haney knows it is a barbie nightgown prior to showing it to Patsy. And Patsy identifies it as a barbie nightgown, her only doubt is which one? Then Patsy identifies a barbie doll inside the barbie nightgown. There is no doubt about the existence of these objects.

Picture 145 is the wine-cellar e.g. paint can

19 TOM HANEY: 145.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: What is the pink thing?

21 TOM HANEY: We have next up, we have some

22 close-ups of the two items in 145, which is the white

23 blanket and the paint can. So if we take -- and if we

24 skip to the other numbered one and go to -- there is a

...

7 TRIP DEMUTH: Looking at picture 145.

8 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay. What is this pink --

9 what is that?

10 TOM HANEY: We will show you a photo of that

11 in just a second.

...

21 TOM HANEY: This is the pink -- excuse me --

22 the pink item that again is in a plastic bag where the

23 photo was taken.

24 PATSY RAMSEY: That is her (inaudible). Why

25 was that there?

0383

1 TOM HANEY: What is it?

2 PATSY RAMSEY: It is her Barbie nightgown.

3 TOM HANEY: Is that hers or her Barbie

4 doll's? When would she have worn that last, do you

5 know?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, she didn't wear it that

7 night

11 PATSY RAMSEY: I'm thinking of a Barbie

12 nightgown that had a big face of Barbie.

13 TRIP DEMUTH: It has a plastic over it, so

14 there is some glare there. You see the plastic.

15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah; right. What I'm saying,

16 I'm -- I remember a Barbie nightgown with a picture,

17 big picture of the head of Barbie on it. So I am not

18 quite sure this is her -- you know, one that she had.

19 TOM HANEY: Okay. You know, it appears --

20 PATSY RAMSEY: That is a Barbie doll under

21 there.

22 TOM HANEY: It appears from the waist down

23 you can see that much, but from the waist up, because

24 of the plastic, there is a flash and the reflection

25 that is washed out.

So there is a barbie nightgown and barbie doll in that picture, although some people cannot see the barbie doll clearly.

 

[BBB167893]

Then it's likely she was taken from her bed wrapped up in the blanket. That means it's probable that an IDI did it not her parents/brother.

Not necessarily. You could go a few different ways with that.

This is why I don't always think the RDI on this forum are open minded enough to evaluate these types of clues without looking first to see if it fits their theory(s). If not, they look for another answer to fit the evidence, or lack of it.

Please, let's not get into who is openminded and who isn't. It won't end well for any of us.

I think my old Dad, RIP, said it best: "Always keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

My bold

What clothing do you mean? The Pj bottoms or some other clothing? The 2nd ligature??

The clothing she was wearing when discovered. There were underwear, longjohns, long sleeve top, and a blanket, correct? Bundled like a papoose is what I read. You know, like ready to be moved.

The wrist ligature is the 2nd ligature, and had the correct design to be used as a straightjacket (isnt that your idea). Maybe she escaped from it?

RDI claims JBR was 'redressed' but there is no proof of this. Typical RDI mythology at work.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI claims JBR was 'redressed' but there is no proof of this. Typical RDI mythology at work.

Except she WAS redressed, HOTYH: her pants and underwear were pulled back up. The question you should be asking is, who would bother to do that?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Except she WAS redressed, HOTYH: her pants and underwear were pulled back up. The question you should be asking is, who would bother to do that?

How do you know, were you there? I've read nothing to prove JBR was ever 'redressed'.

 

[BBB167893]

How do you know, were you there? I've read nothing to prove JBR was ever 'redressed'.

No, I wasn't there, HOTYH, but use a little common sense, brother! Are you honestly trying to tell me that the person who sexually assaulted her--regardless of who it was and why they did it--DID NOT have to pull her pants down to do it?

What exactly am I missing here?

 

[UKGuy]

No, I wasn't there, HOTYH, but use a little common sense, brother! Are you honestly trying to tell me that the person who sexually assaulted her--regardless of who it was and why they did it--DID NOT have to pull her pants down to do it?

What exactly am I missing here?

SuperDave,

What exactly am I missing here?

em intelligence?


.