Partially Wrapped Gifts

[UKGuy]

I had a thought here...that does seem logical,esp. if it were JOHN who did the redressing..(as the fiber evidence appears to indicate).
It would be perfectly normal for Patsy to have been in JB's room that night... should Burke wake up and see her going in or out of her bedroom.But it appears JOHN did *not want to be seen anywhere near JB's bedroom !

JMO8778,
Sure, it seems to explain the evidence better than assuming it was Patsy who redressed JonBenet.

Since asserting the Wednesday size-12's were selected to match the Wednesday size-6's appears consistent with a PDI, but does not explain why Patsy neglected any other size-6's e.g. from JonBenet's panty drawer, or why she did not have a convincing explanation for JonBenet wearing size-12's despite her purchasing them, and allegedly redressing her.

I reckon this is one part of the evidence chain that has been misinterpreted in favor of PDI?


.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Sure, it seems to explain the evidence better than assuming it was Patsy who redressed JonBenet.

Since asserting the Wednesday size-12's were selected to match the Wednesday size-6's appears consistent with a PDI, but does not explain why Patsy neglected any other size-6's e.g. from JonBenet's panty drawer, or why she did not have a convincing explanation for JonBenet wearing size-12's despite her purchasing them, and allegedly redressing her.

I reckon this is one part of the evidence chain that has been misinterpreted in favor of PDI?


.

yes,and I have a feeling there is more evidence on JR than has been publicly released,even including his fiber evidence..I think Thomas knew something was amiss with JR and JB's underwear...the fact he leaves the size 12's out of his PDI theory altogether says a lot,IMO..when it would have been easy to say Patsy changed her underwear b/c it was soiled,she was afraid someone saw her underwear at the White's,so she changed it to match what she was wearing prior,thinking no one would notice the size.How easy would it have been to say that? Yet, he didn't.He's not releasing all he knows about JR and that underwear,IMO.(and rightly so).

 

[UKGuy]

yes,and I have a feeling there is more evidence on JR than has been publicly released,even including his fiber evidence..I think Thomas knew something was amiss with JR and JB's underwear...the fact he leaves the size 12's out of his PDI theory altogether says a lot,IMO..when it would have been easy to say Patsy changed her underwear b/c it was soiled,she was afraid someone saw her underwear at the White's,so she changed it to match what she was wearing prior,thinking no one would notice the size.How easy would it have been to say that? Yet, he didn't.He's not releasing all he knows about JR and that underwear,IMO.(and rightly so).

JMO8778,
Thats how I read it, also the Ramsey's would have been privy to Holly Smith's report regarding JonBenet's underwear, it was probably this that Steve Thomas was indirectly referencing in his book, as background to his Toilet Rage theory, probably to bluff them?

I've never seen the fiber analyis report that matches John's shirt to the fibers on JonBenet's body, and since the shirt fibers will be distinctive, originating in Israel, if the match is correct then I reckon John is responsable for the wiping down and redressing of JonBenet, and the fitting of those size-12's rather than size-6's which were available in her panty drawer, a classic male type error, thinking those pants will do, problem solved now lets remove the remaining pairs, voila crime-scene staged!

.

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Thats how I read it, also the Ramsey's would have been privy to Holly Smith's report regarding JonBenet's underwear, it was probably this that Steve Thomas was indirectly referencing in his book, as background to his Toilet Rage theory, probably to bluff them?

could be,as well as he mentioned 3 other things that appear to be hints...one is JB seeing the school nurse several times in Dec.,and always on a Mon.Second is JB's "I don't feel pretty" comment and crying at the party on the 23rd.Third is the dictionary opened to a page with the word incest on it.(with the page creased to it).

I've never seen the fiber analyis report that matches John's shirt to the fibers on JonBenet's body, and since the shirt fibers will be distinctive, originating in Israel, if the match is correct

it appears to be,else the attorney would not have been able to ask about it...he can't lie,while LE can.
But if Thomas already knew something was amiss with the size 12 underwear,then SMIT would have known it,too,right? That flat out tells you what a conspiracy the whole thing was.

then I reckon John is responsable for the wiping down and redressing of JonBenet, and the fitting of those size-12's rather than size-6's which were available in her panty drawer, a classic male type error, thinking those pants will do, problem solved now lets remove the remaining pairs, voila crime-scene staged!

.

only...yikes...he forgot to mention hiding the rest of the underwear.
But hey....no problem when you're able to hide behind lawyers...problem solved=turn over some size 12's of same appearance,Wed. pair missing.I seriously doubt it was even the same tube.I imagine JR made sure it that one was long gone disposed of by then.

 

[DeeDee249]

The presence of either parent in JBRs room/bathroom, whether to search for clean panties or not, would not be suspicious to BR had he heard. What I believe is that they simply did not want to risk waking him up. Considering the frame of mind and the level of stress they Rs were in at the time, it would likely have been difficult, even for master liars like the Rs, to keep their cool in front of their son at that point in the sequence of events.
And I will again say that neither parent thought anyone would notice or make a big deal of (if they did notice) that the panties on JBR when she was found were not her correct size. Think about it- she was wearing long johns over them, and a blanket over that. Even when she was taken from the blanket- the size of the underwear was not apparent though the long johns. The first person to see that the panties on JBR were far too big to have actually belonged to her was the coroner, LA and whatever LE was in the autopsy room. I truly think the Rs simply thought nothing would come of it.
In that sense, it is like the pineapple. They didn't think that would ever be found either, and when it was- they had to lie about that as well.

 

[JMO8778]

Deedee,do you have any ideas on why Thomas omitted the size 12's in his PDI theory? It was just such a glaring omission that it seems to me he knew more about the underwear than he was telling,so better to just leave it out altogether,and make the R's and TR wonder.

 

[DeeDee249]

Deedee,do you have any ideas on why Thomas omitted the size 12's in his PDI theory? It was just such a glaring omission that it seems to me he knew more about the underwear than he was telling,so better to just leave it out altogether,and make the R's and TR wonder.

This is a mystery to me, too. But the things that come to mind are that if he DOES know more about how they impact the case and is not permitted to speak about it or he does not feel they matter to the case ( find this hard to believe, though). To me, it is the replacement size 12s that link PR VERY closely to the staging, if not to the murder, yet I have not seen speculation from ST, nor any LE familiar with the case as to WHY her panties would have needed to be changed at all. It wasn't because she had wet them- that may have occurred post-mortem anyway- and besides, the urine-stained panties and long johns were left on her anyway. That would raise a red flag to me that it was some OTHER bodily fluid (semen or blood) that would be MUCH more implicating that necessitated her panties be changed.
Yet, other than being discussed by people like us, not much else is said about them. PR's interrogators ask her about the panties, ask about the NYC shopping trip, but really don't probe. They seem to accept PR's statements- I have not seen where she was asked point blank if SHE had put the too-large panties on her daughter. She dances around this by talking about JBR's panty drawer and how she "helps herself to whatever is in there". So the impression PR gives is that JBR dressed herself in those huge panties, and her mother was unaware of this fact. Yet JBR always needed help on the toilet- I can't believe PR wouldn't have noticed her panties didn't fit.
What she seems to be getting a pass on is that she is never confronted with the fact that blood was found to have been wiped from her panty/thigh area yet corresponding blood was not found on the size 12 panties that were found on the body of her daughter. A few drops, yes, but not blood in sufficient quantity to correspond with a relatively large area having been wiped of blood.

 

[Blondieskatz]

Wouldn't it be great if ST would tell his story and answer questions? I think some things may have been left out of his book....

 

[JMO8778]

Wouldn't it be great if ST would tell his story and answer questions? I think some things may have been left out of his book....

oh absolutely there were things he couldn't tell...he completely left JR out of the scenario until after 10AM or so..he had to have known that since proper protocol for JR's Co. wasn't followed,and with BR being marched right back to bed,and the missing phone records,that JR was already in on it all.
But I'm not saying anything bad about ST...he had his reasons I'm sure.
Other things are leaving out the underwear,and talking about Patsy disposing of the tape and cord,although he did write about the golf clubs JR wanted,and PP's raid of the house.He just wasn't going to say and let on to TR and JR what he thought..or perhaps *knew...went where and with whom,and rightly so.

 

[rashomon]

2. The stager did not want to look for a size 4-6 Wednesday pair specifically in JonBenet's bedroom/bathroom, so either found or knew about the size-12 Wednesday bloomingdales.

Why do you think the stager did not want to look in JonBenet's bedroom/bathroom where there was a drawer full of fitting size 4-6 underwear?

 

[UKGuy]

Why do you think the stager did not want to look in JonBenet's bedroom/bathroom where there was a drawer full of fitting size 4-6 underwear?

rashomon,
Well lets look at what was on offer to the stager: according to the investigators 15 pairs of size-6's were removed from JonBenet's panty drawer. Its possible two pairs of which were Wednesday pairs, or simply one, if you consider JonBenet was wearing a size-6 Wednesday pair.

Now all these pairs need not be Bloomingdales, they may be a mix from various clothing manufacturers, so the 15th pair may be a Wednesday pair too?

What if Patsy's statement that she could not remember if she purchased a pack of Bloomingdales size-6's actually means she did, because remembering means she then should remember about the size-12's, so this event occurred in November, making seven pairs of size-6's fairly new and recent, increasing the probability that a Wednesday pair of size-6's may have been available to the stager?

So the stager after wiping down JonBenet decides she needs to be wearing some underwear so should proceed directly to her bathroom panty drawer, and select a pair of size-6's, if day-of-the-week is an issue, then pick a Wednesday pair, otherwise pick any pair, since these are JonBenet's pants.

The stager chose not to do this, instead chose a pair of Wednesday size-12's which were not located in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, then critically removed the remaining 6 pairs of size-12's. Why so? No intruder need redress JonBenet, never mind remove the remaining 6-pairs, remember the wiped clean flashlight?

So if you think the stager is being clever by taking the day-of-the-week into account, what about the size of these pants, meant for a girl aged 12, thats twice JonBenet's age, and likely twice her height and weight. So the stager must have known at some point, this would be noticed, but decided these pants rather than any pair from her bathroom drawer must do.

Why so then? All three Ramsey's had access to JonBenet's bedroom, Patsy states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer thus implicating herself directly, and if Patsy's fingerprints had been discovered on the Bloomingdales wrapping this would have been no surprise, so there is no reason for Patsy not to fetch a pair of size-6's for JonBenet, she fetched a pair of longjohns without any difficulty? So if Patsy had placed those size-12's onto JonBenet, she would have placed the remainder into her panty drawer as per her statement to investigators, but still the question regarding size would arise, and if Patsy is going to assert JonBenet must have put that pair on herself, meaning she cut the Bloomingdales package open, then why not any pair, any day-of-the-week since both scenarios generate a question, and both require the same answer? i.e. that JonBenet dressed herself in the underwear!

Patsy's answers to the investigators regarding the size-12's suggests she may not have even known the remaining pairs of size-12's were missing, since the stager may not have explained this to her? Hence the line of questioning by the investigators regarding her prior knowledge about the status of the size-12's. She probably confirms by lying that her knowledge is circumscribed?

So I'm ruling out Patsy as the person who placed the size-12's onto JonBenet!

That leaves John or Burke as the stager and I'm going for John since fiber evidence links him to the crime-scene.

So the reason John did not want to look in JonBenet's bedroom/bathroom where there was a drawer full of fitting size 4-6 underwear is because he did not want to draw attention to himself or JonBenet as they were either in his bedroom, or down in the basement, whereas Patsy and Burke were upstairs, John's intention was to return JonBenet to some form of normalcy and those size-12's, which may have been in a drawer in the master bedroom, or downstairs waiting to be gift-wrapped, would help achieve this along with the longjohns?

Patsy's inept answers tells you she is following someone elses script?


.

 

[UKGuy]

This is a mystery to me, too. But the things that come to mind are that if he DOES know more about how they impact the case and is not permitted to speak about it or he does not feel they matter to the case ( find this hard to believe, though). To me, it is the replacement size 12s that link PR VERY closely to the staging, if not to the murder, yet I have not seen speculation from ST, nor any LE familiar with the case as to WHY her panties would have needed to be changed at all. It wasn't because she had wet them- that may have occurred post-mortem anyway- and besides, the urine-stained panties and long johns were left on her anyway. That would raise a red flag to me that it was some OTHER bodily fluid (semen or blood) that would be MUCH more implicating that necessitated her panties be changed.
Yet, other than being discussed by people like us, not much else is said about them. PR's interrogators ask her about the panties, ask about the NYC shopping trip, but really don't probe. They seem to accept PR's statements- I have not seen where she was asked point blank if SHE had put the too-large panties on her daughter. She dances around this by talking about JBR's panty drawer and how she "helps herself to whatever is in there". So the impression PR gives is that JBR dressed herself in those huge panties, and her mother was unaware of this fact. Yet JBR always needed help on the toilet- I can't believe PR wouldn't have noticed her panties didn't fit.
What she seems to be getting a pass on is that she is never confronted with the fact that blood was found to have been wiped from her panty/thigh area yet corresponding blood was not found on the size 12 panties that were found on the body of her daughter. A few drops, yes, but not blood in sufficient quantity to correspond with a relatively large area having been wiped of blood.

DeeDee249,

To me, it is the replacement size 12s that link PR VERY closely to the staging, if not to the murder, yet I have not seen speculation from ST, nor any LE familiar with the case as to WHY her panties would have needed to be changed at all.

I guess that is where ST's Toilet Rage theory fits in, remember the investigators wanted to know what Patsy knew about the size-12's, not about why she was redressed, which most people infer to be in connection with the PDI. The investigators questions are intended to lock Patsy into a version of events, and that the size-12's were Ramsey property located in the Ramsey house on the night of JonBenet's death, Patsy confirms this.

It wasn't because she had wet them- that may have occurred post-mortem anyway- and besides, the urine-stained panties and long johns were left on her anyway. That would raise a red flag to me that it was some OTHER bodily fluid (semen or blood) that would be MUCH more implicating that necessitated her panties be changed.

But bed-wetting is central to ST's Toilet Rage theory.

Yet, other than being discussed by people like us, not much else is said about them. PR's interrogators ask her about the panties, ask about the NYC shopping trip, but really don't probe.

Patsy lies and lies and forgets and forgets, finally she states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer. Leaving JonBenet to cut open the fancy Bloomingdales package remove a Wednesday pair then dispense with the remaining 6-pairs?

They seem to accept PR's statements- I have not seen where she was asked point blank if SHE had put the too-large panties on her daughter.

Because they do not know what Patsy knows, and from her answers Patsy did not know that the remaining size-12's were missing.

What she seems to be getting a pass on is that she is never confronted with the fact that blood was found to have been wiped from her panty/thigh area yet corresponding blood was not found on the size 12 panties that were found on the body of her daughter. A few drops, yes, but not blood in sufficient quantity to correspond with a relatively large area having been wiped of blood.

Asking her this would not prove anything and might signal how important this was, since along with the established fact that the size-12's are Ramsey property, all this adds up to a wipe-down and a redressing scenario e.g. a staged crime-scene.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
Well lets look at what was on offer to the stager: according to the investigators 15 pairs of size-6's were removed from JonBenet's panty drawer. Its possible two pairs of which were Wednesday pairs, or simply one, if you consider JonBenet was wearing a size-6 Wednesday pair.

Now all these pairs need not be Bloomingdales, they may be a mix from various clothing manufacturers, so the 15th pair may be a Wednesday pair too?

What if Patsy's statement that she could not remember if she purchased a pack of Bloomingdales size-6's actually means she did, because remembering means she then should remember about the size-12's, so this event occurred in November, making seven pairs of size-6's fairly new and recent, increasing the probability that a Wednesday pair of size-6's may have been available to the stager?

So the stager after wiping down JonBenet decides she needs to be wearing some underwear so should proceed directly to her bathroom panty drawer, and select a pair of size-6's, if day-of-the-week is an issue, then pick a Wednesday pair, otherwise pick any pair, since these are JonBenet's pants.

The stager chose not to do this, instead chose a pair of Wednesday size-12's which were not located in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, then critically removed the remaining 6 pairs of size-12's. Why so? No intruder need redress JonBenet, never mind remove the remaining 6-pairs, remember the wiped clean flashlight?

So if you think the stager is being clever by taking the day-of-the-week into account, what about the size of these pants, meant for a girl aged 12, thats twice JonBenet's age, and likely twice her height and weight. So the stager must have known at some point, this would be noticed, but decided these pants rather than any pair from her bathroom drawer must do.

Why so then? All three Ramsey's had access to JonBenet's bedroom, Patsy states she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer thus implicating herself directly, and if Patsy's fingerprints had been discovered on the Bloomingdales wrapping this would have been no surprise, so there is no reason for Patsy not to fetch a pair of size-6's for JonBenet, she fetched a pair of longjohns without any difficulty? So if Patsy had placed those size-12's onto JonBenet, she would have placed the remainder into her panty drawer as per her statement to investigators, but still the question regarding size would arise, and if Patsy is going to assert JonBenet must have put that pair on herself, meaning she cut the Bloomingdales package open, then why not any pair, any day-of-the-week since both scenarios generate a question, and both require the same answer? i.e. that JonBenet dressed herself in the underwear!

Patsy's answers to the investigators regarding the size-12's suggests she may not have even known the remaining pairs of size-12's were missing, since the stager may not have explained this to her? Hence the line of questioning by the investigators regarding her prior knowledge about the status of the size-12's. She probably confirms by lying that her knowledge is circumscribed?

So I'm ruling out Patsy as the person who placed the size-12's onto JonBenet!

That leaves John or Burke as the stager and I'm going for John since fiber evidence links him to the crime-scene.

So the reason John did not want to look in JonBenet's bedroom/bathroom where there was a drawer full of fitting size 4-6 underwear is because he did not want to draw attention to himself or JonBenet as they were either in his bedroom, or down in the basement, whereas Patsy and Burke were upstairs, John's intention was to return JonBenet to some form of normalcy and those size-12's, which may have been in a drawer in the master bedroom, or downstairs waiting to be gift-wrapped, would help achieve this along with the longjohns?

Patsy's inept answers tells you she is following someone elses script?

UKGuy,

interesting points, but I disagree with your conclusion regarding Patsy's inept answers indicating that she was following someone else's script. Don't' forget that both Ramseys gave totally inept answers to questions asked of them, which to me indicates that they staged the scene with their minds not functioning in an analytical manner, which is understandable when you consider the panic they must have been in.
Imo it is highy unlikely that John even knew any size 12 panties had been bought by Patsy, and knew where she kept them.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

interesting points, but I disagree with your conclusion regarding Patsy's inept answers indicating that she was following someone else's script. Don't' forget that both Ramseys gave totally inept answers to questions asked of them, which to me indicates that they staged the scene with their minds not functioning in an analytical manner, which is understandable when you consider the panic they must have been in.
Imo it is highy unlikely that John even knew any size 12 panties had been bought by Patsy, and knew where she kept them.

rashomon,
The world is an interesting place, your disagreement without reference to any evidence simply means you have no argument, and alike your Ramsey rationale employed here before e.g. panic mode, you offer no analysis. This means nothing except to fellow travellors, in future for your benefit I will shorten my replies to accord with your view that the Ramseys were in panic mode!


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe in this case if it was"toilet rage", it may have pertained to fecal soiling and not to bedwetting or wetting herself.

 

[JMO8778]

I believe in this case if it was"toilet rage", it may have pertained to fecal soiling and not to bedwetting or wetting herself.

yes,and IMO,I don't think JB ever made it to bed that night.
But as far as the soiling goes,another thought that comes to mind is,did she soil herself during a molestation (or an attempt to),and this started a rage attack against her? Remember that victims of abuse will often soil themselves in an attempt to offend their abuser.So perhaps that could have been a trigger?
Dr Spitz says she was manually strangled by her shirt collar first...that leads me to believe that what followed next,the head blow..was no accident.And sometime in between those 2 events,she screamed.

 

[DeeDee249]

yes,and IMO,I don't think JB ever made it to bed that night.
But as far as the soiling goes,another thought that comes to mind is,did she soil herself during a molestation (or an attempt to),and this started a rage attack against her? Remember that it's said that victims of abuse will often soil themselves in an attempt to offend their abuser.So perhaps that could have been a trigger?
Dr Spitz says she was manually strangled by her shirt collar first...that leads me to believe that what followed next,the head blow..was no accident.And sometime in between those 2 events,she screamed.

Possibly- that would certainly account for the pressing need to change her panties and get rid of the soiled ones. But I wonder if traces of fecal matter would have been apparent at autopsy, internally if not on her pubic area and thighs as was the traces of blood. My thinking was that she had soiled her self after returning from the White's and after resisting her mother's attempts to get her to go on the toilet.
Some abused children WILL soil themselves, especially when the molester is nearby and an opportunity to molest seems imminent. Even very young children can sense when abuse is likely to occur and children too young to get away physically may soil themselves as a way of discouraging the molestation. What a terrifying last hour that poor baby spent in that house.

 

[azwriter]

The box(s) need not have been empty. The package/tube of panties may have been included with other items in a larger box. As far as the wrapping paper that was used- we have incomplete crime scene photos to work with- we have never seen all the photos available. While it is true that the paper shown in the corner of the wineceller photo was the FAO Schwartz paper, we should not assume that all the gifts were wrapped in the same paper. We could also assume that at least one box MAY have been a gift for BR. The way I understand it, LE never really investigated those gifts further, as far as discovering what was in the boxes and noting what paper they were wrapped with. They were listed as "partially unwrapped gifts"- the end. Then when PR was questioned about them she of course had her own "explanations".
Bloomies panties are in a small package- often a plastic tube not much bigger than a soda can. They could very easily be put in a box containing clothes, or even a bigger toy.

In reading your description of the "tube" of Bloomies, would that mean the panties were packaged inside in order of the days of the week? That would mean Wednesday's pair would be close to the middle of the tube, wouldn't it? If that is the case, since we know JonBenet was wearing size 12 Wednesday, then that particular pair must have been selected on purpose instead of just removing a pair from the "tube."
And, does anyone know if JonBenet was capable of reading the days of the week? If it's possible she could have put the larger size Wednesday panties herself. JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

In reading your description of the "tube" of Bloomies, would that mean the panties were packaged inside in order of the days of the week? That would mean Wednesday's pair would be close to the middle of the tube, wouldn't it? If that is the case, since we know JonBenet was wearing size 12 Wednesday, then that particular pair must have been selected on purpose instead of just removing a pair from the "tube."
And, does anyone know if JonBenet was capable of reading the days of the week? If it's possible she could have put the larger size Wednesday panties herself. JMO

I had read that JBR couldn't read. So she wouldn't have picked Wednesday panties on purpose. I have seen the day-of-the week panties packaged various ways- either in a plastic tube (where yes, the Wednesday pair would be in the center of the tube) or in a clear plastic pouch where the panties are side by side and even if the Wednesday pair was in the middle, they could be easily removed. I do believe that the choice of the Wednesday pair was deliberate and done because they were replacing another Wednesday pair. There were only 2 pairs of panties in the house that day that said Wednesday- JBR's original size 6 that she was wearing that day (Christmas Day that year WAS a Wednesday ) and the pair from the size 12 set bought for Jenny at the same time as the set for JBR. I know this has been debated to death (no pun intended) here, but I can't think of any other reason that accounts for the Wednesday panties that were part of Jenny's gift to have been put on JBR. If it was a matter of simply needing a clean pair and not wanting to go back up stairs to get them, any of the pairs in the package would do. If packed in a tube- the Sunday pair is first. So the stagers had to pull out 3 pairs just to get to the Wednesday pair. Considering the immense stress and pressure of the moment- unless there was a good reason for needing a Wednesday pair I just can't imagine that happening.

 

[UKGuy]

I had read that JBR couldn't read. So she wouldn't have picked Wednesday panties on purpose. I have seen the day-of-the week panties packaged various ways- either in a plastic tube (where yes, the Wednesday pair would be in the center of the tube) or in a clear plastic pouch where the panties are side by side and even if the Wednesday pair was in the middle, they could be easily removed. I do believe that the choice of the Wednesday pair was deliberate and done because they were replacing another Wednesday pair. There were only 2 pairs of panties in the house that day that said Wednesday- JBR's original size 6 that she was wearing that day (Christmas Day that year WAS a Wednesday ) and the pair from the size 12 set bought for Jenny at the same time as the set for JBR. I know this has been debated to death (no pun intended) here, but I can't think of any other reason that accounts for the Wednesday panties that were part of Jenny's gift to have been put on JBR. If it was a matter of simply needing a clean pair and not wanting to go back up stairs to get them, any of the pairs in the package would do. If packed in a tube- the Sunday pair is first. So the stagers had to pull out 3 pairs just to get to the Wednesday pair. Considering the immense stress and pressure of the moment- unless there was a good reason for needing a Wednesday pair I just can't imagine that happening.

DeeDee249,

There were only 2 pairs of panties in the house that day that said Wednesday- JBR's original size 6 that she was wearing that day (Christmas Day that year WAS a Wednesday ) and the pair from the size 12 set bought for Jenny at the same time as the set for JBR.

Do you have the reference/source that there were only two pairs of Wednesday size-6's?

I know this has been debated to death (no pun intended) here, but I can't think of any other reason that accounts for the Wednesday panties that were part of Jenny's gift to have been put on JBR.

That seems like the most logical reason, but if as rashomon asserts that the Ramsey's were in a state of panic then maybe Wednesday was a random choice and the original pair of size-6's were not a Wednesday pair?

If it was a matter of simply needing a clean pair and not wanting to go back up stairs to get them, any of the pairs in the package would do.

Absolutely, and the same applies to those in her bathroom drawer, there were 15-pairs to choose from!

Patsy would have gone into JonBenet's bathroom to fetch a pair of size-6's why not, she fetched and placed those longjohns onto JonBenet?