"personal hygeine" of JB

[Nuisanceposter]

John Ramsey said pretty much that - watch the video if you haven't already. When Ramsey finishes his spiel, Thomas seems truly surprised to be hearing John Ramsey make his statement about Ramsey's perception of Christian forgiveness.

As you said, it may not be right for other religions but for a professing Christian not to believe the sinner must ask for forgiveness is either very bold or else blatantly ignorant of the tenets of Christianity.

That's almost as shocking as Patsy's psychobabble in DOI about JonBenet's death being predestined in Patsy's choice of purple for the tree, as well as meant by God to bring people closer to the Lord. Her reasoning bordered on delusional, imo. Patsy needs Christmas more than anyone! It's hard work to be the mother of an angel.

It continually surprises me that people don't see through the facade of Christianity the Rs bantered about as if it answered everything and there should be no question - people like the Rs who went to church every week could not have possibly raised a hand to their child, or ever even raised their voices in anger. I have no idea how these two lying charlatans (imo) are so charismatic that seemingly otherwise rational people will accept any answer, now matter how outlandish, that relieves them from any burden of blame whatsoever in their daughter's death and subsequent murder investigation.

Just my own opinion.

 

[Ames]

..and the bible says 'you shall know them by the fruit of their spirit'.his rotted.

LOL...yes it did!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

No religion precludes someone from sin. We ALL believe something. Even agnostics and athiests have a belief system. No one should be excluded from suspicion or guilt just because they are members of any particular faith. That's where so many people supposedly prosecuting this case made their first mistakes.

 

[coloradokares]

..and the bible says 'you shall know them by the fruit of their spirit'.his rotted.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[JMO8778]

Maybe I'm wrong, seeing as no one sin is greater than another,but I didn't get the same bad vibes from Tammy Faye as I did from the R's when I saw her LKL.And I thought she was very brave for going on tv like that,so close to death.(I'll duck in case anyone wants to throw something at me!).That's just my overall opinion.

 

[azwriter]

Then what do you think John meant, when he said....that the blanket "wasn't supposed to be there"? If an intruder did it, how would John know what was supposed to be there, and what WASN'T supposed to be there. This is why I believe that John or Patsy....pulled out the Barbie nightgown by mistake, when they took the blanket from the dryer...and just never did notice it. It wasn't laid out....it was partially hid by the blanket...which tells me, that they didn't know it was there. They overlooked it....therefore...it "wasn't supposed to be there" If it was meant to be there...then when told about it, John would have said something like..."well, I wonder what the intention was for leaving that there?"...because John and Patsy are trying to make it appear as though an intruder did it. I think that he was in shock, when he heard that....and was probably thinking out loud....that it "wasn't supposed to be there". He was probably petrified that it may have some sort for fiber evidence on it.

I'm sure as the evidence and story of what appeared to happen, the Ramsey's were ticking off in their heads what they overlooked.
The nightgown, the appearance of a snack of pineapple, Burke's voce during the 911 call and that JonBenet arrived home fast asleep and immediately put to bed are instances Patsy and John had to hustle and try to cover.

However, over all, they did a pretty good job of covering the circumstances of their daughter's death. A numb-nut police force helped them get away with murder.
Just My Opinion!

 

[Ames]

I'm sure as the evidence and story of what appeared to happen, the Ramsey's were ticking off in their heads what they overlooked.
The nightgown, the appearance of a snack of pineapple, Burke's voce during the 911 call and that JonBenet arrived home fast asleep and immediately put to bed are instances Patsy and John had to hustle and try to cover.

However, over all, they did a pretty good job of covering the circumstances of their daughter's death. A numb-nut police force helped them get away with murder.
Just My Opinion!

Truer words have never been spoken!!

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe I'm wrong, seeing as no one sin is greater than another,but I didn't get the same bad vibes from Tammy Faye as I did from the R's when I saw her LKL.And I thought she was very brave for going on tv like that,so close to death.(I'll duck in case anyone wants to throw something at me!).That's just my overall opinion.

More than you know! John and Patsy were the NEW Jim and Tammy Faye!

 

[DeeDee249]

There are some sins that are worse...any sin that is committed against a child, for one. Rape, murder, abuse. Embezzlement and fraud will take a back seat to those sins any day.
Tammy Faye was a sinner like we all are- but, she wasn't an evil person, just made some bad choices.

 

[JMO8778]

More than you know! John and Patsy were the NEW Jim and Tammy Faye!

rofl...good one SD !

 

[JMO8778]

There are some sins that are worse...any sin that is committed against a child, for one. Rape, murder, abuse. Embezzlement and fraud will take a back seat to those sins any day.
Tammy Faye was a sinner like we all are- but, she wasn't an evil person, just made some bad choices.

right,she wasn't a murderer...I didn't get that overall BAD,sick feeling like I get when I see the R's on LKL.

 

[BBB167893]

rofl...good one SD !

Thanks! I meant their interview style.

 

[JMO8778]

Thanks! I meant their interview style.

actually,my cousin was one of JB's lawyers,and we would see him walking with him on tv sometimes,and my son would say 'look mom,there's xxxx',and I would say "shhhh !! we don't know those people !!! "
my dad would always take up for him and say something dumb like 'well,you can't chose your clients'. (to heck you can't !)

 

[DeeDee249]

I've been trying to wrap my brain around the urine-stained long johns and panties...
I can totally conceive of the few drops of blood on the panties occuring right after death, and that it was not seen by the Rs. There was watery red fluid (later ID'd as blood) in the vaginal vault and there was semi-fluid blood in the vaginal area as well. It could have oozed or dripped out, even if she was dead already and couldn't "bleed".
BUT-
I can't fit the pieces: if the urine was post-mortem release and the Rs did not know it took place THEN the blanket would be stained too, even a little.
And if they KNEW about the urine, why didn't they change her into another clean pajama bottom?
So here are a few scenarios- see if they make sense to anyone else:

The urine was post-mortem and the blood was not noticed because it did not come through to the long johns. The blanket was also stained, but they could not bear to undress her again, so they washed the blanket. By the time it came out of the dryer the long johns and panties were dry, so they just left them on and wrapped her in the blanket. They needed the panties to say "Wednesday" in case someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (as she was wont to do) and might have remembered the distictive Bloomies's Wednesday waistband. The size 6s were too bloody, and that's why they replaced them with the size 12s in the first place. So when the size 12's became stained with urine, they had to leave them on because they had no other "Wednesday" panties.
OR
JBR was not wrapped in the blanket originally. This was one of the "details" that JR took care of during the time LA noticed him "missing". Between 10 and 11 am. (this coincides with his slip-up to Melinda and JAR when he tells them he found her at 11am).
JR knew both Officer French and FW did not find the body or their search of the basement, so when JR went down there, he wrapped the body in the blanket, which was in the basement dryer, and pulled the body closer to the door so it could be seen more easily when he went to "find" her later.
OR
The urine was post-mortem and wet the blanket AND the panties and long johns. The blanket was washed and put in the dryer, but it was too close to "show time" when the 911 call was made, so JR went down to take care of it later. They didn't wash the panties and long johns too because that would have left her naked, and I don't think they would have done that. They couldn't really be sure if the first officers on the scene would find her or not, so when they did NOT, he went down to cover her up.
The blanket was NEEDED because the story they wanted to convey was that she was taken from her bed. Of course, it this truly WAS an intruder sexual assault/ murder, a real intruder would have had no problem leaving her naked, in fact may have been LIKELY to do so. The blanket wasn't meant to cover/hide her- it was meant to make it look like she was taken from her bed wrapped in it. But if you look at the crime scene photos of her bed- it is messy, yes, but look at the foot end- the bedspread is on there perfectly. There is NO way anyone took a blanket (and child) OUT of that bed and left the spread looking so neat. Unless the "intruder" put her down and stopped to re-make just the BOTTOM half of the bed. (as IF).
Why didn't they also wash the bloody original panties too? Well, maybe there was a chance the blood would not come out completely- but I think they just never thought anyone would notice that the replacement panties were not her size.
Do any of these seem likely?
I am also not so sure she was carried down the stairs unconscious. The bits of fake greenery in her hair could have come from anywhere in the basement- it was where the artificial Christmas trees and wreaths were kept. They were stored in several places, including the wineceller, and there is a crime scene photo of the closed wineceller door, on the wall right outside that door is a spray of fake greenery. If she was killed right outside the door, as I think she was, the green bits could have been picked up there. IMO, the staging equipment was all from the basement. The paint brush, the cord and tape, all used for PR's paintings.

 

[JMO8778]

I've been trying to wrap my brain around the urine-stained long johns and panties...
I can totally conceive of the few drops of blood on the panties occuring right after death, and that it was not seen by the Rs. There was watery red fluid (later ID'd as blood) in the vaginal vault and there was semi-fluid blood in the vaginal area as well. It could have oozed or dripped out, even if she was dead already and couldn't "bleed".
BUT-
I can't fit the pieces: if the urine was post-mortem release and the Rs did not know it took place THEN the blanket would be stained too, even a little.
And if they KNEW about the urine, why didn't they change her into another clean pajama bottom?
So here are a few scenarios- see if they make sense to anyone else:

The urine was post-mortem and the blood was not noticed because it did not come through to the long johns. The blanket was also stained, but they could not bear to undress her again, so they washed the blanket. By the time it came out of the dryer the long johns and panties were dry, so they just left them on and wrapped her in the blanket. They needed the panties to say "Wednesday" in case someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (as she was wont to do) and might have remembered the distictive Bloomies's Wednesday waistband. The size 6s were too bloody, and that's why they replaced them with the size 12s in the first place. So when the size 12's became stained with urine, they had to leave them on because they had no other "Wednesday" panties.
OR
JBR was not wrapped in the blanket originally. This was one of the "details" that JR took care of during the time LA noticed him "missing". Between 10 and 11 am. (this coincides with his slip-up to Melinda and JAR when he tells them he found her at 11am).
JR knew both Officer French and FW did not find the body or their search of the basement, so when JR went down there, he wrapped the body in the blanket, which was in the basement dryer, and pulled the body closer to the door so it could be seen more easily when he went to "find" her later.
OR
The urine was post-mortem and wet the blanket AND the panties and long johns. The blanket was washed and put in the dryer, but it was too close to "show time" when the 911 call was made, so JR went down to take care of it later. They didn't wash the panties and long johns too because that would have left her naked, and I don't think they would have done that. They couldn't really be sure if the first officers on the scene would find her or not, so when they did NOT, he went down to cover her up.
The blanket was NEEDED because the story they wanted to convey was that she was taken from her bed. Of course, it this truly WAS an intruder sexual assault/ murder, a real intruder would have had no problem leaving her naked, in fact may have been LIKELY to do so. The blanket wasn't meant to cover/hide her- it was meant to make it look like she was taken from her bed wrapped in it. But if you look at the crime scene photos of her bed- it is messy, yes, but look at the foot end- the bedspread is on there perfectly. There is NO way anyone took a blanket (and child) OUT of that bed and left the spread looking so neat. Unless the "intruder" put her down and stopped to re-make just the BOTTOM half of the bed. (as IF).
Why didn't they also wash the bloody original panties too? Well, maybe there was a chance the blood would not come out completely- but I think they just never thought anyone would notice that the replacement panties were not her size.
Do any of these seem likely?
I am also not so sure she was carried down the stairs unconscious. The bits of fake greenery in her hair could have come from anywhere in the basement- it was where the artificial Christmas trees and wreaths were kept. They were stored in several places, including the wineceller, and there is a crime scene photo of the closed wineceller door, on the wall right outside that door is a spray of fake greenery. If she was killed right outside the door, as I think she was, the green bits could have been picked up there. IMO, the staging equipment was all from the basement. The paint brush, the cord and tape, all used for PR's paintings.

the only thing I would add is,remember that a hair from Patsy's arm was found on the blanket...which would have been unlikely to be there once the blanket was washed..so to me that says she was involved in wrapping her in the blanket,or perhaps gave her a hug through it at some point.I don't think JR was the only one involved w. the blanket.
and perhaps the blanket was added later,once the LJ's and underwear had dried? (as you said earlier). Maybe the wrist ligatures were added at around the same time,since it appears there was a period of time that elapsed bf they were added,as her arms were likely in rigor when tied.so perhaps her arms went into rigor,and her LJ's and underwear dried b/f the wrist ligatures and blanket were added.I think this was part of a restaging.JAT.

 

[UKGuy]

I've been trying to wrap my brain around the urine-stained long johns and panties...
I can totally conceive of the few drops of blood on the panties occuring right after death, and that it was not seen by the Rs. There was watery red fluid (later ID'd as blood) in the vaginal vault and there was semi-fluid blood in the vaginal area as well. It could have oozed or dripped out, even if she was dead already and couldn't "bleed".
BUT-
I can't fit the pieces: if the urine was post-mortem release and the Rs did not know it took place THEN the blanket would be stained too, even a little.
And if they KNEW about the urine, why didn't they change her into another clean pajama bottom?
So here are a few scenarios- see if they make sense to anyone else:

The urine was post-mortem and the blood was not noticed because it did not come through to the long johns. The blanket was also stained, but they could not bear to undress her again, so they washed the blanket. By the time it came out of the dryer the long johns and panties were dry, so they just left them on and wrapped her in the blanket. They needed the panties to say "Wednesday" in case someone at the White's had helped her in the bathroom (as she was wont to do) and might have remembered the distictive Bloomies's Wednesday waistband. The size 6s were too bloody, and that's why they replaced them with the size 12s in the first place. So when the size 12's became stained with urine, they had to leave them on because they had no other "Wednesday" panties.
OR
JBR was not wrapped in the blanket originally. This was one of the "details" that JR took care of during the time LA noticed him "missing". Between 10 and 11 am. (this coincides with his slip-up to Melinda and JAR when he tells them he found her at 11am).
JR knew both Officer French and FW did not find the body or their search of the basement, so when JR went down there, he wrapped the body in the blanket, which was in the basement dryer, and pulled the body closer to the door so it could be seen more easily when he went to "find" her later.
OR
The urine was post-mortem and wet the blanket AND the panties and long johns. The blanket was washed and put in the dryer, but it was too close to "show time" when the 911 call was made, so JR went down to take care of it later. They didn't wash the panties and long johns too because that would have left her naked, and I don't think they would have done that. They couldn't really be sure if the first officers on the scene would find her or not, so when they did NOT, he went down to cover her up.
The blanket was NEEDED because the story they wanted to convey was that she was taken from her bed. Of course, it this truly WAS an intruder sexual assault/ murder, a real intruder would have had no problem leaving her naked, in fact may have been LIKELY to do so. The blanket wasn't meant to cover/hide her- it was meant to make it look like she was taken from her bed wrapped in it. But if you look at the crime scene photos of her bed- it is messy, yes, but look at the foot end- the bedspread is on there perfectly. There is NO way anyone took a blanket (and child) OUT of that bed and left the spread looking so neat. Unless the "intruder" put her down and stopped to re-make just the BOTTOM half of the bed. (as IF).
Why didn't they also wash the bloody original panties too? Well, maybe there was a chance the blood would not come out completely- but I think they just never thought anyone would notice that the replacement panties were not her size.
Do any of these seem likely?
I am also not so sure she was carried down the stairs unconscious. The bits of fake greenery in her hair could have come from anywhere in the basement- it was where the artificial Christmas trees and wreaths were kept. They were stored in several places, including the wineceller, and there is a crime scene photo of the closed wineceller door, on the wall right outside that door is a spray of fake greenery. If she was killed right outside the door, as I think she was, the green bits could have been picked up there. IMO, the staging equipment was all from the basement. The paint brush, the cord and tape, all used for PR's paintings.

DeeDee249,
If both the longjohns and the size-12 underwear are both urine-stained without the size-12's being urine-stained via osmosis, then you have a postmortem urine release after JonBenet was killed and redressed! This would suggest it simply went unnoticed beneath the blankets?

imo the size-12's are simply on JonBenet to add another layer of clothing to hide or obscure that there has been a sexual assault, its not the size or the day of the week that matters but that they are underwear.

If JonBenet's death had been staged to suggest it was committed by an sexual predator then longjohns, size-12 underwear, and blankets are not required.

Instead the staging reflects that of a minor kidnapped from her bed, this worked and gained JonBenet's killer extra time.

I can't fit the pieces: if the urine was post-mortem release and the Rs did not know it took place THEN the blanket would be stained too, even a little.
And if they KNEW about the urine, why didn't they change her into another clean pajama bottom?

Because they did not care about the urine-staining, and likely did not want to run the risk of contaminating her body, its even possible that the blanket was added to mask this too.

Another indicator that her killer knew she was both urine-stained and blood smeared, was that Coroner Meyer commented:

Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in the area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

This strongly suggests that JonBenet was wiped down after any postmortem release of blood?

Also:
JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over
the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath
the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the
words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine
stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas
of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

So this suggests that it is possible that after a postmortem urine-release that JonBenet had her longjohns removed along with her size-12 underwear, then she was wiped down, followed by replacing her underwear, but, putting the longjohns on back to front?

This may explain the anterior staining and the non-matching blood stains?

It may also suggest that her killer and the stager(s) never considered her urine-stained, or soaked clothing, as it would have been at that point in time, an issue.

And since the staging indicates a bedtime abduction, the urine-stained clothing may also indicate a bedwetting incident, advocated by many, patently this too was never considered to be important by her killer?

.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
If both the longjohns and the size-12 underwear are both urine-stained without the size-12's being urine-stained via osmosis, then you have a postmortem urine release after JonBenet was killed and redressed! This would suggest it simply went unnoticed beneath the blankets?

No, then the blanket would also have gotten wet, and have urine stains.

imo the size-12's are simply on JonBenet to add another layer of clothing to hide or obscure that there has been a sexual assault, its not the size or the day of the week that matters but that they are underwear.

I DO agree that the sexual assault was intended to be hidden. But I disagree that the only reason he panties were replaced with the size 12s merely to add another layer. What good would that do? All clothing is removed at autopsy anyway. However, I concede the Rs may not have been aware there would BE an autopsy. After all, IMO the garrotte was made to provide a visual cause of death. No, I feel the original panties were too blood stained, and that's why they were removed. And the replacement panties HAD to say "Wednesday" because they had to match what she wore to the White's in case any one there had seen them.

If JonBenet's death had been staged to suggest it was committed by an sexual predator then longjohns, size-12 underwear, and blankets are not required.
Instead the staging reflects that of a minor kidnapped from her bed, this worked and gained JonBenet's killer extra time.

I agree that if the killing had been done by an INTRUDER sexual predator, then there was no need to redress her and wrap her in the blanket. So if the Rs were trying to make it look like that, they would have left her undressed and unwrapped.

Because they did not care about the urine-staining, and likely did not want to run the risk of contaminating her body, its even possible that the blanket was added to mask this too.

Another indicator that her killer knew she was both urine-stained and blood smeared, was that Coroner Meyer commented:

Ramsey warrant dated January 30, 1997

This strongly suggests that JonBenet was wiped down after any postmortem release of blood?

Also:
JonBenet Ramsey Autopsy Report

So this suggests that it is possible that after a postmortem urine-release that JonBenet had her longjohns removed along with her size-12 underwear, then she was wiped down, followed by replacing her underwear, but, putting the longjohns on back to front?

This may explain the anterior staining and the non-matching blood stains?

I don't think so. They'd have had to put both items back on her the wrong way. The blood stains were not on the long johns anyway, only on the panties, and because there was no VISIBLE blood on the pubic area, that's why it was described as non-matching. This told the coroner that she had been wiped down.

It may also suggest that her killer and the stager(s) never considered her urine-stained, or soaked clothing, as it would have been at that point in time, an issue.

And since the staging indicates a bedtime abduction, the urine-stained clothing may also indicate a bedwetting incident, advocated by many, patently this too was never considered to be important by her killer?

.

If it was an ACTUAL intruder, I don't think the bedwetting would have been an issue. See, there were TWO separate types of crimes staged that do not usually occur together in reality. ONE, a kidnapping for ransom (as opposed to a parental kidnapping to interfere with custody of the child) in this case, the child is removed from the home immediatly, especially with the sleeping family at home. It is well-planned enough NOT to have to write a ransom note with paper and pen that needed to be searched for in the home, and a get-away car or other method of leaving quickly with the child is readily available, including fast and easy point of exit from the home.
TWO, the murder/sexual assault of a child. When kids are sexually assaulted like this, they are rarely left alive, especially when they are old enough to tell who did it. When pedophiles kidnap, it is for the purpose of sex and possibly murder, never for ransom. They dispose of the child when finished with them. Ransom needs a live child for exchange.

 

[UKGuy]

If it was an ACTUAL intruder, I don't think the bedwetting would have been an issue. See, there were TWO separate types of crimes staged that do not usually occur together in reality. ONE, a kidnapping for ransom (as opposed to a parental kidnapping to interfere with custody of the child) in this case, the child is removed from the home immediatly, especially with the sleeping family at home. It is well-planned enough NOT to have to write a ransom note with paper and pen that needed to be searched for in the home, and a get-away car or other method of leaving quickly with the child is readily available, including fast and easy point of exit from the home.
TWO, the murder/sexual assault of a child. When kids are sexually assaulted like this, they are rarely left alive, especially when they are old enough to tell who did it. When pedophiles kidnap, it is for the purpose of sex and possibly murder, never for ransom. They dispose of the child when finished with them. Ransom needs a live child for exchange.

This may explain the anterior staining and the non-matching blood stains?

I don't think so. They'd have had to put both items back on her the wrong way. The blood stains were not on the long johns anyway, only on the panties, and because there was no VISIBLE blood on the pubic area, that's why it was described as non-matching. This told the coroner that she had been wiped down.

Why both, it is the anterior staining that appears anomolous, Coroner Meyer outlined the issue with her blood-stained underwear?

Lets start at the beginning. If JonBenet had been killed because she had wet the bed her killer would have removed any urine-soaked clothing, otherwise why bother with a wine-cellar staging, also the bedtime wetting would have emptied her bladder, making a further release improbable?

So if her urine-stained longjohns are the result of a postmortem release then she must have been wearing them when she was killed?

If she was wearing them when killed and if her killer noticed they were wet, then it was not considered important?

So either she was wearing the longjohns prior to her death, or they were placed upon her in the interval between say the head blow and the final asphyxiation?

It seems likely that the size-12's were placed upon JonBenet in this same period of time?

What Coroner Meyer suggests is that JonBenet was wiped down, after being redressed in the size-12's because of the non-matching blood stains, again this tells you that the urine-staining was ignored?

So have we established that there was a postmortem urine-release, postmortem blood-release, and a postmortem wipe down?

Also that her killer noted the postmortem-release then decided to wipe her down, possibly replacing her longjohns on back to front?

So a possible sequence of events is:

1. JonBenet is sexually assaulted.
2. JonBenet is manually asphyxiated.
3. JonBenet is mistakenly assumed to be dead.
4. JonBenet is cleaned up and redressed in the white gap top, size-12's and the longjohns.
5. JonBenet is discovered to be alive, so a head blow is delivered using the flashlight.
6. Upon moving her it is found she has had a postmortem release, so she is wiped down.
7. Wine-cellar staging is enacted including the wrist restraints, mouth tape, and garrote.

Considering event 5. at this point some might suggest this was when a staged sexual assault was inflicted revealing JonBenet to be alive, if so why bother wiping her down?

.

 

[Solace]

Why both, it is the anterior staining that appears anomolous, Coroner Meyer outlined the issue with her blood-stained underwear?

Lets start at the beginning. If JonBenet had been killed because she had wet the bed her killer would have removed any urine-soaked clothing, otherwise why bother with a wine-cellar staging, also the bedtime wetting would have emptied her bladder, making a further release improbable?

So if her urine-stained longjohns are the result of a postmortem release then she must have been wearing them when she was killed?

If she was wearing them when killed and if her killer noticed they were wet, then it was not considered important?

So either she was wearing the longjohns prior to her death, or they were placed upon her in the interval between say the head blow and the final asphyxiation?

It seems likely that the size-12's were placed upon JonBenet in this same period of time?

What Coroner Meyer suggests is that JonBenet was wiped down, after being redressed in the size-12's because of the non-matching blood stains, again this tells you that the urine-staining was ignored?

So have we established that there was a postmortem urine-release, postmortem blood-release, and a postmortem wipe down?

Also that her killer noted the postmortem-release then decided to wipe her down, possibly replacing her longjohns on back to front?

So a possible sequence of events is:

1. JonBenet is sexually assaulted.
2. JonBenet is manually asphyxiated.
3. JonBenet is mistakenly assumed to be dead.
4. JonBenet is cleaned up and redressed in the white gap top, size-12's and the longjohns.
5. JonBenet is discovered to be alive, so a head blow is delivered using the flashlight.
6. Upon moving her it is found she has had a postmortem release, so she is wiped down.
7. Wine-cellar staging is enacted including the wrist restraints, mouth tape, and garrote.

Considering event 5. at this point some might suggest this was when a staged sexual assault was inflicted revealing JonBenet to be alive, if so why bother wiping her down?

.

And you think John did this? And if so, do you think Patsy is involved in it? Why would Patsy go along with this UK. Seriously, do you think Patsy is going to go along with a sexual assault of her daughter?

 

[UKGuy]

And you think John did this? And if so, do you think Patsy is involved in it? Why would Patsy go along with this UK. Seriously, do you think Patsy is going to go along with a sexual assault of her daughter?

Solace,

All the evidence suggests she did just that. Someone sexually assaulted JonBenet, then cleaned her up and hid it from public view.

Patsy, John and Burke all colluded postmortem, and some of their accounts conflict with each other.

Patsy's own words tell you she must have known about the prior abuse, she publicly defended John against allegations of molesting JonBenet, she became amnesic following JonBenet's death.

Its an open and shut case, pity there is no trial, it would be the trial of the century!


.