Partially Wrapped Gifts

[UKGuy]

"They" (btw it wasn't the police who conducted the interviews) did not lock Patsy into anything. Instead, their wishy-washy questioning once more opened the door wide for Patsy to be wishy-washy in her answers too, and Patsy seized the opportunity of course.

Let's face it (and if you can offer one single example proving the contrary, please post it here): the interrogations of the Ramseys were just plain pitiful. They were a joke.
Not once did the investigators seize the opportunity to get them with their back up against the wall – not once!
Instead, the Ramseys were given kid glove treatment in ALL those interviews. For example, when things got critical (e.g. when Patsy was asked about the red turtleneck) she merely shed some crocodile tears, and they fell for it, politely asking her if she wanted to take a break. Of course, that was exactly what Patsy wanted: take a break from these questions to get the time to think for an answer .
And it gets worse: when Patsy returned from her break, one expected the interviewers at least to pick up right where they left off. But no – often, the critical subject was simply DROPPED altogether and they asked her about something else.
Also, the interviewers were such wimps that they let Lin Wood be totally disrespectful to them. Wood employed his usual tactic, interrupting them whenever he could, asking aggressive questions to throw them off balance.
Instead of being told by Kane & Co: “I am asking the questions here, Mr. Wood”, they gave him free rein, and Wood of course took advantage of this “offer”. I had the impression that they were afraid of Wood’s attack dog behavior.

Does that surprise you? These interviewers were every guilty suspect's dream!

And they let that 'alleged memory' loss slide! Without even asking something like:
"Am I getting that right, Patsy: On that trip to Bloomingdale's, you distinctly remember having bought size 12 Bloomies for your niece, but can't remember whether you bought a smaller set for your daughter too?"

Patsy: "No, I can't remember."

Interviewer: "Now what would you say if we told you that we have found new size 6 Bloomies in JonBenet's drawer? Would that refresh your memory?"

Imo Patsy's lies demonstrate that she does not know how to wriggle out of the mistake she made by putting the size 12s on JonBenet and hiding/removing the rest of the set.

rashomon,

Imo Patsy's lies demonstrate that she does not know how to wriggle out of the mistake she made by putting the size 12s on JonBenet and hiding/removing the rest of the set.

Patsy's lies tell you she does not know the remaining size-12's are missing otherwise she would not offer the explanation that she opened the package and placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.

imo it is John who wiped down and redressed JonBenet, its John's fibers who are on JonBenet's body not Patsy's.

I reckon the PDI theory is so flawed it needs to be either dropped or seriously revised. It makes for great melodrama, all that pushy mom stuff, but closer inspection reveals it to be inconsistent, just like Lou Smit's IDI is.


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,


Patsy's lies tell you she does not know the remaining size-12's are missing otherwise she would not offer the explanation that she opened the package and placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer.

imo it is John who wiped down and redressed JonBenet, its John's fibers who are on JonBenet's body not Patsy's.

I reckon the PDI theory is so flawed it needs to be either dropped or seriously revised. It makes for great melodrama, all that pushy mom stuff, but closer inspection reveals it to be inconsistent, just like Lou Smit's IDI is.

The PDI theory is not flawed at all, but perfectly consistent with the evidence. John may very well have helped Patsy at some point, and I think that point came when Patsy could not proceed with the infliction of the genital wound and stopped abruptly after seeing the blood. That's why there is only the single small abrasion.
I believe John then wiped off the blood and Patsy thought of the size 12s to replace the size 6 Bloomies Jon Benet had been wearing, retrieving a Wednesday pair and teling John to put it on the victim.

In a JDI theory, do you really believe John would have let bungling Patsy to do the staging for him?
John once said that if he had been the offener, he woud have staged a better scene, and that's one of the few occasions where I believe him.

Frankly, imo John thought Patsy would not get away with all this, which is why he tried to get as little involved in the staging as possible.

 

[UKGuy]

good thoughts,Deedee.the only conclusions I can draw for certain out of it are that JR redressed JB in the too-large underwear,and that he didn't ever mention to Patsy,at least not bf the interviews,what he'd done with the rest of them (or rather,how PP later disposed of them,IMO).And it does seem the stager was worried someone might have seen JB in that type underwear at the White's,so viola..change it to something that appears to be the same.
But I'm not so sure JR wouldn't have known about the underwear..Patsy might have had everything laying out bf wrapping them,and he happened to see them,not thinking anything about it until they were later needed.

JMO8778,
Patsy's interviewers repeatedly asked her if she purchased a pack of Bloomingdales size-6's at the same time as the size-12's. Characteristically she forgets. Her interviewer then asks :

25 Q. Okay. So if there was an
0112
1 unopened package, it would have been left in
2 the house?
3 A. Yes.

For the interviewer this probably means, in the absence of an unopened package that some of the size-6's in JonBenet's panty drawer are the latter Bloomingdales size-6's. I reckon if Patsy had said she remembered purchasing a set of size-6's from Bloomingdales, she might have been told a pair was missing? This is conjecture on my part it is something we have never been told, but might explain the persistence of the questioning regarding the size-6's?

But I'm not so sure JR wouldn't have known about the underwear..Patsy might have had everything laying out bf wrapping them,and he happened to see them,not thinking anything about it until they were later needed.

Correct the location in the basement where gifts were wrapped was not the wine-cellar. Remember back to Johns interview with Lou Smit e.g.

0272
20 JOHN RAMSEY: Well Patsy had gotten a bunch
21 of gifts at FAO Swartz up in New York in early
22 December, some of which were for them were for
23 Burke's birthday, which was in January. She didn't
24 know they were in the closet exactly,

Why should John say that, this contradicts Patsy's version, and might help explain why Patsy got the size-12's so wrong.

John assisted with moving the xmas-gifts to his plane so he was aware of what was going on, he did not live in the hermetically sealed bubble some PDI enthusiasts wish to portray.

It looks to me as if JDI and Patsy helped out with the staging?


.

 

[UKGuy]

The PDI theory is not flawed at all, but perfectly consistent with the evidence. John may very well have helped Patsy at some point, and I think that point came when Patsy could not proceed with the infliction of the genital wound and stopped abruptly after seeing the blood. That's why there is only the single small abrasion.
I believe John then wiped off the blood and Patsy thought of the size 12s to replace the size 6 Bloomies Jon Benet had been wearing, retrieving a Wednesday pair and teling John to put it on the victim.

In a JDI theory, do you really believe John would have let bungling Patsy to do the staging for him?
John once said that if he had been the offener, he woud have staged a better scene, and that's one of the few occasions where I believe him.

Frankly, imo John thought Patsy would not get away with all this, which is why he tried to get as little involved in the staging as possible.

rashomon,

Patsy thought of the size 12s to replace the size 6 Bloomies Jon Benet had been wearing, retrieving a Wednesday pair and teling John to put it on the victim.

Patsy tells you herself that she fetched the longjohns from JonBenet's bathroom so why not a pair of size-6's?

The size-12's would have been Johns idea, Patsy would never have placed those size-12's onto JonBenet, even her explanation regarding JonBenet wanting them, is, pardon the pun, Pants!

I reckon you are forcing the evidence to fit your theory, not disprove the alternatives, and the PDI is slowly becoming untenable.


.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Patsy tells you herself that she fetched the longjohns from JonBenet's bathroom so why not a pair of size-6's?

I think she wanted to replace the size 6 Bloomies Wednesday pair with the size 12 Wednesday pair.

For some reason it must have been important for Patsy that JonBenet wear Bloomies. The size-12's would have been Johns idea, Patsy would never have placed those size-12's onto JonBenet, even her explanation regarding JonBenet wanting them, is, pardon the pun, Pants!

I agree Patsy's explanation its 'Pants' re to JonBenet allegedly wanting to wear size 12 Bloomies which would have dangled almost down to her knees.
But Patsy, when taking a pair out of the package and handing them to John without unfolding them, may not have been aware of how big they actually were.

I reckon you are forcing the evidence to fit your theory, not disprove the alternatives, and the PDI is slowly becoming untenable.

Evidence can't be forced. It is what it is. A theory has to be consistent with the evidence, and in circumstantial evidence cases, certain evidentiary issues can be interpreted differently.
Therefore having two different interpretations doesn't mean that interpretation A is correct and B is false, or vice versa.

To me, is not about disproving any alternatives, but about pointing out that alternatives to your scenario do exist which stand up to scrutiny, and that the PDI theory (with John as the abettor) is a viable theory.

 

[JMO8778]

It looks to me as if JDI and Patsy helped out with the staging?


.

only thing I would say there is why would he allow the staging to be so sloppily done,esp. the wrist 'restraints',if he did it?
What I get out of it from following the fiber evidence,is JR was molesting JB,and Patsy caught him in the act.Patsy is not one to be usurped by anyone, inc. her own daughter,so one of them had to go (just as she said JB 'had to go there' (to heaven) ).Remember Patsy ref. to JB as her best friend...what an odd thing to say.And even BF's can get caught in the crossfire.And so I think she inflicted the head injury on JB,on purpose,from the ensuing rage.
So,as far as the staging,each does their respective part to cover their tracks,as the fiber evidence seems to suggest.

Only other thing I would add is that I believe the crime,at least the head injury and what triggered it,occurred elsewhere in the house,since Smit places it in the basement.The furthest place in the house from the basement is Patsy and JR's bedroom.I recall reading they sometimes had the window open,(and could hear the college band),or something to that effect.Seeing as heat rises,and they had a very efficient method of heating,I don't think it's unreasonable to think their window might have been cracked a bit that night,enabling the n-bor to hear JB scream.
So imagine if Patsy had walked in,JB is on her side of the bed (this in particular could have enraged her..she is being replaced!),and she grabs the nearby flashlight? I think it was said there was one she used for the midnight potty runs beside the bed.
And the rest stems from that.
The fact Thomas leaves the size 12's out of his PDI scenario,IMO,screams he knew more about JR's involvement in the crime than he is letting on.Combine that w. the hints he offered throughout his book re: molestation/incest,and I think you can get a pretty good picture of what happened.(nevermind JR's own excuses in DOI as well!)

 

[UKGuy]

I think she wanted to replace the size 6 Bloomies Wednesday pair with the size 12 Wednesday pair.

I agree Patsy's explanation its 'Pants' re to JonBenet allegedly wanting to wear size 12 Bloomies which would have dangled almost down to her knees.
But Patsy, when taking a pair out of the package and handing them to John without unfolding them, may not have been aware of how big they actually were.

Evidence can't be forced. It is what it is. A theory has to be consistent with the evidence, and in circumstantial evidence cases, certain evidentiary issues can be interpreted differently.
Therefore having two different interpretations doesn't mean that interpretation A is correct and B is false, or vice versa.

To me, is not about disproving any alternatives, but about pointing out that alternatives to your scenario do exist which stand up to scrutiny, and that the PDI theory (with John as the abettor) is a viable theory.

rashomon,

I think she wanted to replace the size 6 Bloomies Wednesday pair with the size 12 Wednesday pair.

So why did she not choose a Wednesday pair from among the 15-pairs of size-6's in JonBenet's panty drawer? Also we do not really know if JonBenet was wearing a Wednesday pair of size-6 pants, they may have been any other day and the size-12 choice simply reflects deliberate staging?

Evidence can't be forced. It is what it is. A theory has to be consistent with the evidence, and in circumstantial evidence cases, certain evidentiary issues can be interpreted differently.

A theory can be consistent but false.

Therefore having two different interpretations doesn't mean that interpretation A is correct and B is false, or vice versa.

I disagree, one interpretation will be true and all the others false, possibly including my JDI.

imo there are too many inconsistencies in the PDI for it to stand up anymore.


.

 

[UKGuy]

only thing I would say there is why would he allow the staging to be so sloppily done,esp. the wrist 'restraints',if he did it?
What I get out of it from following the fiber evidence,is JR was molesting JB,and Patsy caught him in the act.Patsy is not one to be usurped by anyone, inc. her own daughter,so one of them had to go (just as she said JB 'had to go there' (to heaven) ).Remember Patsy ref. to JB as her best friend...what an odd thing to say.And even BF's can get caught in the crossfire.And so I think she inflicted the head injury on JB,on purpose,from the ensuing rage.
So,as far as the staging,each does their respective part to cover their tracks,as the fiber evidence seems to suggest.

Only other thing I would add is that I believe the crime,at least the head injury and what triggered it,occurred elsewhere in the house,since Smit places it in the basement.The furthest place in the house from the basement is Patsy and JR's bedroom.I recall reading they sometimes had the window open,(and could hear the college band),or something to that effect.Seeing as heat rises,and they had a very efficient method of heating,I don't think it's unreasonable to think their window might have been cracked a bit that night,enabling the n-bor to hear JB scream.
So imagine if Patsy had walked in,JB is on her side of the bed (this in particular could have enraged her..she is being replaced!),and she grabs the nearby flashlight? I think it was said there was one she used for the midnight potty runs beside the bed.
And the rest stems from that.
The fact Thomas leaves the size 12's out of his PDI scenario,IMO,screams he knew more about JR's involvement in the crime than he is letting on.Combine that w. the hints he offered throughout his book re: molestation/incest,and I think you can get a pretty good picture of what happened.(nevermind JR's own excuses in DOI as well!)

JMO8778,
The size-12's are left out because they demonstrate Patsy's ignorance that the remainder are missing, thus punching a hole in the PDI! What we do not know is if there are 6-pairs of Bloomingdales amongst those taken from JonBenet's panty drawer, and the seventh a Wednesday pair is missing, and if there are no other size-6 Wednesday pairs left, then this offers the rationale for the size-12's found on JonBenet. That evidence has never been made public, not even in Steve Thomas' book.

If Patsy had accidently killed JonBenet then she would have a defence, bolstered further if it was under the circumstances you describe, she would be seen as much a victim as JonBenet.

Both parents were involved in the staging. Patsy's ingorance about the size-12's suggests it was John who wiped down and redressed JonBenet, this is corroborated by the Israeli shirt fibers. It seems Patsy staged the wine-cellar scene.

imo there is enough evidence to rule out an individual PDI based on the Toilet Rage theory, but not quite enough to put John directly in the frame, but I guess that was what the intention of the crime-scene staging was, to confuse and mislead?


.

 

[JMO8778]

imo there is enough evidence to rule out an individual PDI based on the Toilet Rage theory, but not quite enough to put John directly in the frame, but I guess that was what the intention of the crime-scene staging was, to confuse and mislead?


.

surely so;there is some question in my mind if JB ever made it to bed that night,and surely Thomas has some thoughts on this as well,though probably not revealed.Something appears to have happened prior to bedtime,for one,JB's pajamas appear untouched on the bed and under her pillow.
One thing I don't see talked about often is the fact Patsy says it would have been easier to just meet up w/ the older kids after Christmas in MI.How so? That is just more packing and more trekking for them in the days that were to come,when they already had a bday trip and an upcoming pageant for JB.It seems it would have been easier to just have them come to CO. for C-mas to begin with.Perhaps there was some reason or reasons the R's didn't want them there???

 

[coloradokares]

coloradokares,

mmm, yet I describe her answers regarding the size-12's as lies?

I re read it and indeed it appears I misread your post regarding Patsy lying. :blushing:

 

[DeeDee249]

PR did know the size 12s were missing. She and/or JR were the ones who caused that, either by hiding them in a place where they would not be found (like the golf bag) to be removed later (in this instance by Aunt P) or they were able to remove them that evening as they left the house for the last time. They were not searched, they were able to leave wearing the clothes they had on (whereas proper crime scene procedure would have them turn over those clothes before leaving the house).

 

[UKGuy]

PR did know the size 12s were missing. She and/or JR were the ones who caused that, either by hiding them in a place where they would not be found (like the golf bag) to be removed later (in this instance by Aunt P) or they were able to remove them that evening as they left the house for the last time. They were not searched, they were able to leave wearing the clothes they had on (whereas proper crime scene procedure would have them turn over those clothes before leaving the house).

DeeDee249,

PR did know the size 12s were missing.

You cannot know that, you were not present at the crime-scene, or its aftermath. As part of a PDI the theory must explain why Patsy removed the remaining size-12's, where by her own admission her fingerprints or dna on the packaging etc would not be contentious. Furthermore the PDI must offer some rationale behind Patsy stating why she said she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer knowing in advance none would be found, thereby implicating her and her family in the death of JonBenet?



.

 

[UKGuy]

I re read it and indeed it appears I misread your post regarding Patsy lying. :blushing:

coloradokares,
Thanks, misreading is easily done.

 

[UKGuy]

surely so;there is some question in my mind if JB ever made it to bed that night,and surely Thomas has some thoughts on this as well,though probably not revealed.Something appears to have happened prior to bedtime,for one,JB's pajamas appear untouched on the bed and under her pillow.
One thing I don't see talked about often is the fact Patsy says it would have been easier to just meet up w/ the older kids after Christmas in MI.How so? That is just more packing and more trekking for them in the days that were to come,when they already had a bday trip and an upcoming pageant for JB.It seems it would have been easier to just have them come to CO. for C-mas to begin with.Perhaps there was some reason or reasons the R's didn't want them there???

JMO8778,

there is some question in my mind if JB ever made it to bed that night,and surely Thomas has some thoughts on this as well,though probably not revealed.

I reckon JonBenet never made it to her bed, maybe another bed, but not her own! She may have been placed into/onto her bed , at a later point, as part of an initial staging, which was later revised?

It seems it would have been easier to just have them come to CO. for C-mas to begin with.Perhaps there was some reason or reasons the R's didn't want them there???

Difficult to answer this one outright, could be anything from abuse to personal preference?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,

I reckon JonBenet never made it to her bed, maybe another bed, but not her own! She may have been placed into/onto her bed , at a later point, as part of an initial staging, which was later revised?

that would be my guess as well.

Difficult to answer this one outright, could be anything from abuse to personal preference?

it's subjective,for sure.it just seems to me they were trying to keep the older kids,and the fiance..(perhaps that had something to do w. it?),away from the main house.They already had a couple trips planned,so to throw in yet another,and not get to spend actual C-mas day with them to boot,seems a bit absurd.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

You cannot know that, you were not present at the crime-scene, or its aftermath. As part of a PDI the theory must explain why Patsy removed the remaining size-12's, where by her own admission her fingerprints or dna on the packaging etc would not be contentious. Furthermore the PDI must offer some rationale behind Patsy stating why she said she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's panty drawer knowing in advance none would be found, thereby implicating her and her family in the death of JonBenet?



.

None of us were present at the crime scene-so any theory that any of us has is opinion /conjecture anyway.
PR's prints wouldn't have been unexpected. But perhaps prints belonging to another family member WOULD be suspicious enough to warrant the removal of the remaining size 12s.
As far as why PR stated she put them in JBR's panty drawer- while it may seem to us that PR and JR had all their ducks in a row as they were being questioned, there were certainly things that they missed or let slip. This may have been one. One thing that I have mentioned before but don't think I've ever read anything on the matter: New clothes, and the Bloomies panties would be included here, have a kind of "sizing" or other chemical finishing treatment that is removed when laundered. That's why after even one washing, clothes lose some of the "crispness/newness". And it's also why the mothers among us know to wash our children's clothes (especially underwear) before putting them away to be worn by our kids. While no one can say if PR took this extra step, there would have been a way to test those size 12s to see if they had been washed. The rinse cycle in washing machines removes most, not all, detergent residue. A good forensics specialist could have tested those panties for the presence of detergent residue (indicating that they had been washed-giving more credence to PR's statement that she gave them to JBR instead of keeping them as a gift for Jenny), tested to see if it was the same detergent found in the R home, and tested for the presence of the chemical sizing on the fabric when new (which would be the case if they were just removed from a wrapped gift).

 

[UKGuy]

None of us were present at the crime scene-so any theory that any of us has is opinion /conjecture anyway.
PR's prints wouldn't have been unexpected. But perhaps prints belonging to another family member WOULD be suspicious enough to warrant the removal of the remaining size 12s.
As far as why PR stated she put them in JBR's panty drawer- while it may seem to us that PR and JR had all their ducks in a row as they were being questioned, there were certainly things that they missed or let slip. This may have been one. One thing that I have mentioned before but don't think I've ever read anything on the matter: New clothes, and the Bloomies panties would be included here, have a kind of "sizing" or other chemical finishing treatment that is removed when laundered. That's why after even one washing, clothes lose some of the "crispness/newness". And it's also why the mothers among us know to wash our children's clothes (especially underwear) before putting them away to be worn by our kids. While no one can say if PR took this extra step, there would have been a way to test those size 12s to see if they had been washed. The rinse cycle in washing machines removes most, not all, detergent residue. A good forensics specialist could have tested those panties for the presence of detergent residue (indicating that they had been washed-giving more credence to PR's statement that she gave them to JBR instead of keeping them as a gift for Jenny), tested to see if it was the same detergent found in the R home, and tested for the presence of the chemical sizing on the fabric when new (which would be the case if they were just removed from a wrapped gift).

DeeDee249,
I guess they would have been tested for just that reason, since if it ever went to court it would as you suggest show if Patsy was being truthful. Bear in mind Patsy could not remember ever seeing JonBenet in a pair of size-12's, despite her saying she took care of JonBenet's bathing and dressing?


Nearly every aspect of Patsy's story regarding the size-12's is suspect, her answers are inconsistent and evasive, probably because she was attempting to answer questions for which she never knew the real answers. This can only mean she is covering up for someone else, she is following someone elses script.


.

 

[UKGuy]

that would be my guess as well.

it's subjective,for sure.it just seems to me they were trying to keep the older kids,and the fiance..(perhaps that had something to do w. it?),away from the main house.They already had a couple trips planned,so to throw in yet another,and not get to spend actual C-mas day with them to boot,seems a bit absurd.

JMO8778,
Its either them wanting peace and quiet or someone wanted to isolate JonBenet?

 

[coloradokares]

JMO8778,
Its either them wanting peace and quiet or someone wanted to isolate JonBenet?

Perhaps there was nothing sinister in any of that. John Ramsey was divorced from wife one . I am sure JAR and Melinda wanted time with Mom too. So they set the plans that their Christmas would be the following day in Charlevoix. From there the Disney cruise. Some times the biggest mistake is to complicate and see as sinister every detail. When it really is simpler. There was no plan to do away with JonBenet it happened in an explosive confrontation they were left with the fallout to coverup so they would not be spending all their New Years in jail?

 

[UKGuy]

Perhaps there was nothing sinister in any of that. John Ramsey was divorced from wife one . I am sure JAR and Melinda wanted time with Mom too. So they set the plans that their Christmas would be the following day in Charlevoix. From there the Disney cruise. Some times the biggest mistake is to complicate and see as sinister every detail. When it really is simpler. There was no plan to do away with JonBenet it happened in an explosive confrontation they were left with the fallout to coverup so they would not be spending all their New Years in jail?

coloradokares,
I agree nother sinister may have been intended, I'm not suggesting there was a plan to kill JonBenet just to keep her close by someones side, considering that she was killed suggests something went badly wrong, how many children have fatal accidents on xmas day?


.