Ramsey Clothing Journey

[Ames]

Yeah, why would she say that?

The only reason that I can think of is, because an injury took place there. Like as you suggested...maybe JB hit the dresser with her head, as Patsy tried to throw her onto the bed.

 

[BBB167893]

The only reason that I can think of is, because an injury took place there. Like as you suggested...maybe JB hit the dresser with her head, as Patsy tried to throw her onto the bed.

And as we all know by now, the head wound didn't break the skin.

 

[rashomon]

I still believe that those size 12's were in the basement, and that's the first thing that they grabbed, and like you said...it was dark and they didn't realize how large they were. I don't believe that the panties were ever in JB's drawer. I believe that she had a set, and that Patsy bought a size 12 set for Jenny.

I too think the size 12's were in the basement, where they took a Wednesday pair out of the package meant for Jenny.
Now when questioned, Patsy could of course not say where the size 12 underwear was "stored", so she made up that stupid lie about having put them in JonBenet's drawer. Any port in a storm.
Jmpo, but I don't think their lawyers 'prepared' the Ramseys for their testimony to the point of suggesting to them how to explain away incriminating evidence. I believe they were advised to rely on their lawyers to step in and handle 'tough moments' in the interviews. Which Lin Wood and Co did, met with virtually no resistance from LE.

 

[rashomon]

Now that is possible, since.. when shown a picture of the drapes above JB's bed...Patsy said.."I don't see any blood on them, do you?" I thought that was pretty weird, since NOBODY mentioned the word blood to her at all.

Very weird indeed! Do you happen to have the link to the passage of the interview where Patsy said this?

 

[UKGuy]

Good questions, UK.
We should indeed try and approach the issue from this perspective:
Why did the stager of the scene NOT put any size 6's on JonBenet, despite her drawers being full of them, but chose a factory-fresh far too large pair instead?
What was the reason for NOT putting smaller and fitting underpants on her? Why not just choose another Wednesday pair from her many size 6's? All her underwear had days of the week on them, so there was a good chance to find a Wednesday pair.
And why lay the focus on Wednesday at all? From what LHP told us, although JonBenet did have those days of the week underpants, she did not wear them with the correct day on them, that is, in no particular order.
So even if they did not find a Wednesday size 6 pair, the Ramseys could easily have argued that the day of the week was never paid attention to when JonBenet got dressed in them and LHP would have confirmed this.
But when staging the crime scene, it obviously WAS important to the stager that JonBenet be found in a Wednesday pair.
For choosing Wednesday would bolster their story "she was put to bed asleep and when found dead, was still wearing the underwear in which she had been put to bed on Wednesday night".
As for why they chose the factory-new Bloomies - maybe it was because all laundered size 6' still had stains of prior soiling on them? (see Holly Smiths remark about the size 6's) and the stager did not want LE to notice it?
As for the soiled jeans left by JonBenet in her room (or was it the bathroom?), the stager could simply have overlooked them.
Or did the size 6's Wednesday Bloomies she had been wearing contain incriminating forensic evidence, so the stager chose a size 12 pair to replace them, being unaware, in the dimly lit basement and with the victim lying on the floor, of how large they were?

rashomon,
There is no reason why a pair of size-6's could not have been chosen.

For choosing Wednesday would bolster their story "she was put to bed asleep and when found dead, was still wearing the underwear in which she had been put to bed on Wednesday night".

This seems to be the most sensible explanation since it is consistent with their version of events?

I don't understand why Patsy did not go upstairs and select any pair of size-6's, preferably a Wednesday pair, and use these to redress JonBenet. Opening up xmas gifts that might have a financial audit trail and using these to redress JonBenet appears to be so obviously the wrong move?

If the size-12's were located in the basement then removing the remainder which must have been done, is either suggesting the intruder removed them, or someone does not want their immediate origin noticed? Obviously nobody intended at this point to imply that it was JonBenet who dressed herself in those size-12's otherwise the remainder would have been placed into her bathroom panty drawer?

At this point I'm concluding that someone deliberately chose size-12's in preference to size-6's, just why I am not sure, then they removed the remainder. It was an intentional act, not something done in confusion, since they opened the gift, redressed JonBenet then alike the flashlight removed forensic evidence, by removing the remaining size-12's.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Oh, now there's an interesting idea. They did get separate lawyers in the first week, even if they all belonged to the same law firm. Surely Patsy's lawyer--Burke, was his name, was it?--and John's lawyers in the Hadden firm wouldn't have compromised their individual clients with a conflict of interest? Okay, maybe they would, but you could be right, in lieu of Patsy's answers to similar questions in 2000, when she changes her story as she is confronted with the problems in it. I have to think about this, because they both used Lin Wood by 2000, but Wood was and is not a criminal attorney.

KoldKase,
In PMPT, Schiller quotes The Rocky Mountain News, 1997, that Patsy had hired a second attorney. Patrick Furman criminal law professor has joined attorney Patrick Burke to represent Patsy Ramsey.

John had three attorneys representing him, e.g Morgan , Haddon and Foreman.

No doubt it has changed along the way?

They divided the media work between themselves.




.

 

[Ames]

Very weird indeed! Do you happen to have the link to the passage of the interview where Patsy said this?

Sure...I copied this from my Patsy's 1998 Interview...Things Strange or Out of Place thread over at FFJ.


19 TRIP DEMUTH: Five and four.

20 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

21 TOM HANEY: That is the material that pulls

22 the drapery, it pulls it back.

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I don't see any blood

24 or anything, do you?

 

[Ames]

I too think the size 12's were in the basement, where they took a Wednesday pair out of the package meant for Jenny.
Now when questioned, Patsy could of course not say where the size 12 underwear was "stored", so she made up that stupid lie about having put them in JonBenet's drawer. Any port in a storm.
Jmpo, but I don't think their lawyers 'prepared' the Ramseys for their testimony to the point of suggesting to them how to explain away incriminating evidence. I believe they were advised to rely on their lawyers to step in and handle 'tough moments' in the interviews. Which Lin Wood and Co did, met with virtually no resistance from LE.

Agreed! I believe that she said that they were in a drawer, because if she had of said that they were a gift for Jenny, wrapped and stored in the basement, then Haney would have said..."Now how would have an intruder known about those?" BUT...if she says that they were stored in the drawer...the most logical place for panties to be...then, the intruder could have went through a few drawers until he found JB's panty drawer...and because he was an intruder, he could not have cared less if they fit or not...so he grabs the ALREADY OPENED AND IN HER DRAWERS size 12. I think that is the scenario that she was trying to plant in Haney's mind. (NEVERMIND the fact that a real intruder wouldn't have cared enough to place another pair of panties on JB, size 6, size 12, or size 40, or to have made sure that they had the CORRECT DAY OF THE WEEK ON THEM. He just wouldn't have cared, and wouldn't have taken the time to search for them AND then place them on her.)

 

[Ames]

rashomon,
There is no reason why a pair of size-6's could not have been chosen.


This seems to be the most sensible explanation since it is consistent with their version of events?

I don't understand why Patsy did not go upstairs and select any pair of size-6's, preferably a Wednesday pair, and use these to redress JonBenet. Opening up xmas gifts that might have a financial audit trail and using these to redress JonBenet appears to be so obviously the wrong move?

If the size-12's were located in the basement then removing the remainder which must have been done, is either suggesting the intruder removed them, or someone does not want their immediate origin noticed? Obviously nobody intended at this point to imply that it was JonBenet who dressed herself in those size-12's otherwise the remainder would have been placed into her bathroom panty drawer?

At this point I'm concluding that someone deliberately chose size-12's in preference to size-6's, just why I am not sure, then they removed the remainder. It was an intentional act, not something done in confusion, since they opened the gift, redressed JonBenet then alike the flashlight removed forensic evidence, by removing the remaining size-12's.


.

My guess is that Patsy KNEW that all of those panties were stained. If JB died because of an act of bedwetting rage...then that wouldn't have look so good to place stained (but clean) panties on her. When the panties were removed as evidence all of them were said to have been stained. Alot of them from fecal matter. I believe that the unused, size 12's were used, because number one..they were already in the basement and its the first thing that they grabbed...and number two...they were stain free, and fiber free (or so the Ramsey's thought).

Now I know that you probably are going to ask me...Why they didn't change her urine stained longjohns if they were so afraid of her having anything on her that would lead to a bedwetting rage theory. Well, I do not believe that they realized that she had a post mortem release of urine. It was dark, and they were in the WC...and IMO..one of them was using John's night vision goggles. Patsy sure does try to explain those things away...in her 98 interview...saying that she didn't know WHY they would be in Colorado. They were apparently supposed to have been in another state.

Here it is...
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Binoculars, a
3 stapler and... binoculars and a stapler
4 (inaudible).
5 TOM HANEY: Do those items appear to be out
6 of place?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know why the
8 binoculars would be there.
9 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize the
10 binoculars?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they might kind of
12 look like -- they look kind of like one John had
13 on the sailboat which are night visionor
14 something, they were kind of heavy duty, but I
15 don't know for sure.I don't know why they
16 would be in Colorado.17 He had all this stuff up in, the white
18 stuff up in the -- he had like a storage room of
19 sails and stuff like that. I don't know why
20 they would be here if they are, if that's what
21 those are.
22 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.

 

[JMO8778]

I believe JR tried to account for his prints on those in DOI,when he says he picked them up to look out the window at a 'strange vehicle' in the alley...the one he supposedly saw,but never bother to report to LE that morning.

 

[DeeDee249]

I also believe that the panties were in the basement, and the parents did not want to risk going up to get JBR's own panties. I think it has less to do with not wanting her to be wearing a stained pair (although it may have played a part) and more to do with the fact that they weren't sure if their son would be awake and walking around, having heard a scream or other commotion.

 

[JMO8778]

My guess is that Patsy KNEW that all of those panties were stained. If JB died because of an act of bedwetting rage...then that wouldn't have look so good to place stained (but clean) panties on her. When the panties were removed as evidence all of them were said to have been stained. Alot of them from fecal matter. I believe that the unused, size 12's were used, because number one..they were already in the basement and its the first thing that they grabbed...and number two...they were stain free, and fiber free (or so the Ramsey's thought).

Now I know that you probably are going to ask me...Why they didn't change her urine stained longjohns if they were so afraid of her having anything on her that would lead to a bedwetting rage theory. Well, I do not believe that they realized that she had a post mortem release of urine. It was dark, and they were in the WC...and IMO..one of them was using John's night vision goggles. Patsy sure does try to explain those things away...in her 98 interview...saying that she didn't know WHY they would be in Colorado. They were apparently supposed to have been in another state.

Here it is...
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Binoculars, a
3 stapler and... binoculars and a stapler
4 (inaudible).
5 TOM HANEY: Do those items appear to be out
6 of place?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know why the
8 binoculars would be there.
9 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize the
10 binoculars?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they might kind of
12 look like -- they look kind of like one John had
13 on the sailboat which are night visionor
14 something, they were kind of heavy duty, but I
15 don't know for sure.I don't know why they
16 would be in Colorado.17 He had all this stuff up in, the white
18 stuff up in the -- he had like a storage room of
19 sails and stuff like that. I don't know why
20 they would be here if they are, if that's what
21 those are.
22 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.

weird how Patsy immediately zooms in on *only the binoculars!

 

[rashomon]

I also believe that the panties were in the basement, and the parents did not want to risk going up to get JBR's own panties. I think it has less to do with not wanting her to be wearing a stained pair (although it may have played a part) and more to do with the fact that they weren't sure if their son would be awake and walking around, having heard a scream or other commotion.

This could indeed have played a role also: that they thought it too risky to go upstairs again.

Now I know that you probably are going to ask me...Why they didn't change her urine stained longjohns if they were so afraid of her having anything on her that would lead to a bedwetting rage theory. Well, I do not believe that they realized that she had a post mortem release of urine.

I too think they missed it when the urine was released post-mortem. The location of the urine (front of the longjohns), suggests it was probably shed as JonBenet was laying face down on the basement floor where the paint tray was kept. (Hadn't the carped there wet stains on it?)
I believe it was there where the paintbrush was broken (evidence: wooden splinters on the floor) and the neck knot tied.
Imo the dark and windowless wine cellar was chosen as a mere hiding place for the body. When they picked her up later too put the body in that room, they probably were not aware that post mortem urine had been released.

My guess is that Patsy KNEW that all of those panties were stained. If JB died because of an act of bedwetting rage...then that wouldn't have look so good to place stained (but clean) panties on her. When the panties were removed as evidence all of them were said to have been stained. Alot of them from fecal matter. I believe that the unused, size 12's were used, because number one..they were already in the basement and its the first thing that they grabbed...and number two...they were stain free, and fiber free (or so the Ramsey's thought).

Now I know that you probably are going to ask me...Why they didn't change her urine stained longjohns if they were so afraid of her having anything on her that would lead to a bedwetting rage theory. Well, I do not believe that they realized that she had a post mortem release of urine. It was dark, and they were in the WC...and IMO..one of them was using John's night vision goggles. Patsy sure does try to explain those things away...in her 98 interview...saying that she didn't know WHY they would be in Colorado. They were apparently supposed to have been in another state.

Here it is...
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Binoculars, a
3 stapler and... binoculars and a stapler
4 (inaudible).
5 TOM HANEY: Do those items appear to be out
6 of place?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know why the
8 binoculars would be there.
9 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize the
10 binoculars?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they might kind of
12 look like -- they look kind of like one John had
13 on the sailboat which are night visionor
14 something, they were kind of heavy duty, but I
15 don't know for sure.I don't know why they
16 would be in Colorado.17 He had all this stuff up in, the white
18 stuff up in the -- he had like a storage room of
19 sails and stuff like that. I don't know why
20 they would be here if they are, if that's what
21 those are.
22 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.

Where exactly were the night vision binoculars found ?

 

[UKGuy]

My guess is that Patsy KNEW that all of those panties were stained. If JB died because of an act of bedwetting rage...then that wouldn't have look so good to place stained (but clean) panties on her. When the panties were removed as evidence all of them were said to have been stained. Alot of them from fecal matter. I believe that the unused, size 12's were used, because number one..they were already in the basement and its the first thing that they grabbed...and number two...they were stain free, and fiber free (or so the Ramsey's thought).

Now I know that you probably are going to ask me...Why they didn't change her urine stained longjohns if they were so afraid of her having anything on her that would lead to a bedwetting rage theory. Well, I do not believe that they realized that she had a post mortem release of urine. It was dark, and they were in the WC...and IMO..one of them was using John's night vision goggles. Patsy sure does try to explain those things away...in her 98 interview...saying that she didn't know WHY they would be in Colorado. They were apparently supposed to have been in another state.

Here it is...
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Binoculars, a
3 stapler and... binoculars and a stapler
4 (inaudible).
5 TOM HANEY: Do those items appear to be out
6 of place?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know why the
8 binoculars would be there.
9 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize the
10 binoculars?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they might kind of
12 look like -- they look kind of like one John had
13 on the sailboat which are night visionor
14 something, they were kind of heavy duty, but I
15 don't know for sure.I don't know why they
16 would be in Colorado.17 He had all this stuff up in, the white
18 stuff up in the -- he had like a storage room of
19 sails and stuff like that. I don't know why
20 they would be here if they are, if that's what
21 those are.
22 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.

Ames,

My guess is that Patsy KNEW that all of those panties were stained.

Maybe, I'm interpreting Holly Smith as stating those were found in JonBenet's bedroom dresser drawers?

She recalls, "I just had a sense the type of decor in her bedroom was not really a child's decor."

One poignant find that she does recall was a red satin box with what looked like JonBenet’s secret stash of candy.

She found something else in the room, however, which raised an immediate red flag. Smith says most of the panties in JonBenet’s dresser drawers had been soiled with fecal material.

"There is this dynamic of children that have been sexually abused sometimes soiling themselves or urinating in their beds to keep someone who is hurting them at bay," explains Smith.

You may be correct and there there were also soiled pants in the bathroom drawer, but I've not seen this stated publicly. I've alluded to this anomaly before but nobody has picked up on it. I've assumed the pants in her bedroom dresser were soiled and unwashed?

Anyway surely all of JonBenet's size-6 underwear cannot be soiled, also if dirtying her pants, as Nedra describes, is normal for JonBenet then a washed but stained pair would not be out of place?

It does seem a pretty bizarre reason to go for the size-12's, we don't want stained pants so lets dress her in the size-12's and then remove the remaining six pairs.

You may be right since the decision to use the size-12's can be shown to be intentional and deliberate, plus if they were located in the basement then the remainder were also deliberately removed.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I also believe that the panties were in the basement, and the parents did not want to risk going up to get JBR's own panties. I think it has less to do with not wanting her to be wearing a stained pair (although it may have played a part) and more to do with the fact that they weren't sure if their son would be awake and walking around, having heard a scream or other commotion.

DeeDee249,
Who do you think dressed JonBenet in her longjohns and when?

I also believe that the panties were in the basement, and the parents did not want to risk going up to get JBR's own panties.

That seems like a weak excuse to me. They are staging a crime-scene, and what is required is any pair of size-6's, preferably a Wednesday pair, possibly even an already used pair, simply to create consistency. Yet someone elects for a pair of pants purchased for an older girl, which have a financial audit trail attached to them, then they remove any explanation for them being on JonBenet, by removing the six pairs left from the basement?

Lets assume there are drawers full of size-6's upstairs, yet these are ignored.

There is only one location for the size-12's and this is not ignored.

Seems like the size choice was deliberate, is it possible that it was intended as some kind of visual staging element, in the same manner the garrote was visual, was the intention to suggest the intruder had redressed JonBenet then exited with the remaining pairs? Later after the Atlanta interview they realized how weak that seemd so returned the remaining pairs to conform with Patsy's Atlanta explanation?

.

 

[Chrishope]

It looks to me as if there are still no really satisfactory answers to the size 12 panty business.

Far from being some sort of "Gotchya" moment, LE ends the interview with bupkis. There's nothing they can prove.

If PR already knew the remaining size 12s had been removed from the scene, then she knew it didn't really matter what story she told. She had to tell of buying the 12s, because that could be checked. There may have been an audit trail, or the police could simply ask those who went on the shopping trip if they remembered PR buying size 12s. Beyond that, it doesn't matter - PR can say they were in JBR's drawer, in the basement, in the attic, under the couch cushions, whatever. LE can't disprove her claim. Some stories are more plausible than others; The easiest place for an intruder to find panties is in the panty drawer, so that's the story, and no one can disprove it.

If PR didn't know the remaining size 12s had been taken away from the scene (very unlikely imo) then she'd have to assume they were found wherever they really were. IOW, she had to tell the truth. If she said they were in the basement, it would be hard to explain why they were found in the panty drawer, and vice versa.

I still don't see any rational explanation for using the size 12s in the first place, or for removing the surplus size 12s from the crime scene. I wonder if there is some bit of information not made public? Something that would give us the key to why they were chosen and removed.

There also seems to be no reason to "find" the package of size 12s among their belongings and turn them over to LE. Perhaps there is a reason that can't be discerned from the information we have?

 

[Ames]

This could indeed have played a role also: that they thought it too risky to go upstairs again.

I too think they missed it when the urine was released post-mortem. The location of the urine (front of the longjohns), suggests it was probably shed as JonBenet was laying face down on the basement floor where the paint tray was kept. (Hadn't the carped there wet stains on it?)
I believe it was there where the paintbrush was broken (evidence: wooden splinters on the floor) and the neck knot tied.
Imo the dark and windowless wine cellar was chosen as a mere hiding place for the body. When they picked her up later too put the body in that room, they probably were not aware that post mortem urine had been released.

Where exactly were the night vision binoculars found ?

Don't remember...I will do some research.

This is the whole portion of that interview regarding the night vision binoculars...it doesn't say where they were kept.
15 TOM HANEY: Okay. Next we have just some,
16 actually they're going to be loose photos --
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
18 TOM HANEY: -- I slipped in. I'll just
19 hand you one of these one at a time. It's not a
20 real --
21 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
22 TOM HANEY: -- good copy of a photograph?
23 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
24 TOM HANEY: Color copy.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: (Inaudible) telephone.
0554
1 TOM HANEY: Okay.
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Binoculars, a
3 stapler and... binoculars and a stapler
4 (inaudible).
5 TOM HANEY: Do those items appear to be out
6 of place?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I don't know why the
8 binoculars would be there.
9 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize the
10 binoculars?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, they might kind of
12 look like -- they look kind of like one John had
13 on the sailboat which are night vision or
14 something, they were kind of heavy duty, but I
15 don't know for sure. I don't know why they
16 would be in Colorado.
17 He had all this stuff up in, the white
18 stuff up in the -- he had like a storage room of
19 sails and stuff like that. I don't know why
20 they would be here if they are, if that's what
21 those are.
22 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.
0555
1 TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes).
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I think these are sailing
3 because this yellow thing I think makes it float
4 or something a little. John would know if
5 that's what that was.
6 TRIP DeMUTH: But you don't recall those
7 being around the house?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: No, not, I can't
9 (inaudible).
10 TRIP DeMUTH: But they do look like
11 something that you owned at some point or --
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, well, he had, you
13 know, all that kind of gear for the sailboat
14 races they had to have a lot of stuff like that
15 and that, I mean, it looks like it might be kind
16 of more sailing equipment than just like bird
17 watching or something, you know.
18 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. And you think it was
19 night vision stuff?
20 PATSY RAMSEY: I know he had a pair of
21 night vision on the sailboat.
22 TRIP DeMUTH: Is that something that you
23 would have left up there?
24 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
25 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. Now, those are not
0556
1 like regular binoculars, those are --
2 PATSY RAMSEY: Night vision are different.
3 TRIP DeMUTH: Well, yeah, and quite a bit
4 higher up the price range?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
6 TRIP DeMUTH: Significantly.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I don't even know
8 that that's them, that yellow piece made me
9 think of the sailboats that have yellow.
10 TRIP DeMUTH: Okay. But it looks like a
11 strap?
12 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.

 

[JMO8778]

>2 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.

I wonder if these were night vision?

 

[Ames]

>2 We had a pair of binoculars up on the
23 dress -- the high boy up in John Andrew's room,
24 more like in a leather case, like a leather
25 binocular case.

I wonder if these were night vision?

Ahhhh, who knows. Its hard to tell since Haney didn't question her further about them. Just like everything else he let slip by.

 

[BBB167893]

Ahhhh, who knows. Its hard to tell since Haney didn't question her further about them. Just like everything else he let slip by.

That's something I just can't figure. Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the country. How could he not jump all over these things?