Size 12/14 Bloomies

[rashomon]

rashomon,

Yes but I have already referenced that there was a soiled pair of underwear and jeans lying upstairs on the floor and that when discovered JonBenet was wet with urine. Not quite the scenario a toilet rage advocate would want?

I dont doubt there are similarities in approach to either theory, e.g. Toilet Rage or Sexual Abuse

Also why would a Toilet Rage stager require her to be wearing size-12 underwear, when she had a drawer full of size-6's upstairs?

If you are going to hide the toilet rage aspect then surely you get the underwear correct?

I think over the recent weeks I covered most of the items in the wine-cellar and demonstrated either that they have been staged or they have been removed. This is prima facia evidence that we are dealing with a staged homicide.

JonBenet's death was no accident since regardless of which sequence of events you propose, someone either whacked her on the head then deliberately strangled her, bear in mind all those contusions and abrasions on her neck, those are not accidental! Or the alternate sequence where she was strangled first then whacked on the head, the other circumstance where either occurs in parallel still means she was intended to be killed.

Someone tried to mask the circumstances surrounding her death by staging a homicide in the wine-cellar!

IMO a leotard is something gymnasts or pageant contestants may wear, I would expect JonBenet to normally wear either socks or tights. With it being xmas, she may have been wearing tights, but I have never seen this confirmed anywhere.

If a soiled pair of underwear was found 'in her jeans', it would suggest to me that this was not the underwear JB wore on that particular night. For I can't imagine JB, after coming home from the Whites' party, wearing the black velvet pants, would then have changed 'into a pair of jeans' shortly before bedtime.
Imo JB wore those jeans before going to the Whites' party, not afterward.

Also why would a Toilet Rage stager require her to be wearing size-12 underwear, when she had a drawer full of size-6's upstairs?

Maybe because only the size-12 underwear had 'Wednesday' printed on it?
Remember that it was very important to the stager to make it appear as if JB had been abducted from her bed, still wearing Wednesday (Dec 25) underwear she had gone to bed with.

 

[UKGuy]

If a soiled pair of underwear was found 'in her jeans', it would suggest to me that this was not the underwear JB wore on that particular night. For I can't imagine JB, after coming home from the Whites' party, wearing the black velvet pants, would then have changed 'into a pair of jeans' shortly before bedtime.
Imo JB wore those jeans before going to the Whites' party, not afterward.


Maybe because only the size-12 underwear had 'Wednesday' printed on it?
Remember that it was very important to the stager to make it appear as if JB had been aducted from her bed, still wearing the Wednesday (Dec 25) underwear she had gone to bed with.

rashomon,

Maybe because only the size-12 underwear had 'Wednesday' printed on it?
Remember that it was very important to the stager to make it appear as if JB had been aducted from her bed, still wearing the Wednesday (Dec 25) underwear she had gone to bed with.

Yes possibly but that consideration did not come first, we know this as the staging changed, unless you think there was only ever one staging event?

JonBenet was sexually assaulted first, then wiped down, then dressed in the size-12 underwear, with longjohns added, but no socks, leaving her in her White Gap Top!

If a Toilet Rage was the reason JonBenet was killed you would expect her staging to be consistent since its known at that point in time what scenario is being planned.


For example, she was meant to have been abducted from bed, so why not after wiping her down undress her completely and redress her in either in pijamas or nightgown?


If its a PDI can we assume she might get that bit worked out?

Imo JB wore those jeans before going to the Whites' party, not afterward.

In a toilet rage theory this does not matter , what does is the fact they were left lying visible on the floor!

So if its Toilet Rage you will want to remove any evidence of JonBenet having a wetting/soiling accident regardless of when it occurred e.g. you want it off the BPD radar completely. So the soiled underwear and jeans upstairs should have been removed and the underwear washed by hand! We know JonBenet's killer has removed and added items to the crime scene.

None of this was done, and its what you would expect from someone trying to hide a toilet rage death.

Why should this be, because Toilet Rage was not the original motivation behind her death! Evidently some other motive was.


.

 

[Jayelles]

A question: there seems to be some discussion about 'leotards'. I always thought 'leotards' was a synonym for 'tights', but after looking up 'leotard' in my dictionary it says it's some kind of body suit often used for exercise or dancing.
Which was JB wearing, tights or a leotard body suit?

We have an item of clothing here called a "body" (odd name I know). Bodys are SIMILAR to leotards but they have gusset poppers which leotards do not have, When you are wearing a body, you unfasten them at the gusset when you go to the loo. They are very comfortable to wear and give a nice sleek line under trousers/pants. I wear them a lot with business suits.

I would imagine that it would be a similar item of clothing which is being called a leotard here. I don't think JBR was wearing such an item either on the day before she died or at the time of her death.

 

[Britt]

For I can't imagine JB, after coming home from the Whites' party, wearing the black velvet pants, would then have changed 'into a pair of jeans' shortly before bedtime.

Maybe not on a regular night, but the family was leaving on a trip first thing in the a.m. Clothing routines can be different pre-trip because stuff needs to be washed and packed.

And/or maybe she'd wet the bed the prior night -- LHP said the sheets had been changed -- and she was simply waiting for her nightie in the laundry.

Or, as I said before, maybe she was dressed for bed trip-ready, in Gap shirt and play pants, for early a.m. exit.

Anyway, IMO Patsy's severe amnesia re those pants means they were significant.

 

[Britt]

For example, she was meant to have been abducted from bed, so why not after wiping her down undress her completely and redress her in either in pijamas or nightgown?

But what if that's not what she was wearing to bed that night? What if the perp was trying to fool the other parent, and that parent knew that JB was going to bed in her Gap shirt and Wednesday undies. Perhaps JB had even made a point of wearing those items, or insisted on it, so the stager had to maintain that, even to the point of replacing the undies with identical ones that were too big.

 

[Britt]

None of this was done, and its what you would expect from someone trying to hide a toilet rage death.

Good points, UKGuy. I just think Patsy was focused more on hiding the child abuse than on what triggered it.

She didn't remove the pants from the scene; she removed the scene from the pants... and created a whole new scene in a far corner of the basement.

 

[UKGuy]

Good points, UKGuy. I just think Patsy was focused more on hiding the child abuse than on what triggered it.

She didn't remove the pants from the scene; she removed the scene from the pants... and created a whole new scene in a far corner of the basement.

Britt,

Thanks for your remarks, but my critique still stands. If the motivating factor to killing your daughter arises due to toilet rage, and you go to extraordinary lengths to hide this by staging more than one homicide, removing and adding forensic evidence, why are the soiled pants left in the jeans upstairs?

I would speculate that this is probably where Steve Thomas first saw the possible connection between bedwetting and toilet rage.

Also lets face it JonBenet never went to bed wearing jeans and size-6 underwear which she soiled in bed!

I'm assuming she never soiled her bed that night, since I've read no reports listing forensic evidence to match it.

So you are left with bedwetting as motivation for the death of a 6-year old girl, maybe in some deprived inner city area, where violence may be a norm, but this is Married-To-A-Millionare wannabee socialite Mrs Ramsey, with no history of corporal punishment.

But what if that's not what she was wearing to bed that night? What if the perp was trying to fool the other parent, and that parent knew that JB was going to bed in her Gap shirt and Wednesday undies. Perhaps JB had even made a point of wearing those items, or insisted on it, so the stager had to maintain that, even to the point of replacing the undies with identical ones that were too big.

There is something important regarding the Wednesday underwear, and it may be you are correct, that one of the other Ramsey residents was aware of this.

But JonBenet was redressed, she never went to bed wearing those longjohns or the size-12 underwear, they were selected by her killer, your remarks regarding the white gap top having the same significance as the Wednesday underwear, is contradicted by her barbie-gown being present at the crime-scene, rather than leaving her white gap top, the idea was to replace this with her barbie gown! Either way it does not add up.

Currently IMO the forensic evidence is not consistent with the toilet rage theory.


.

 

[tumble]

But JonBenet was redressed, she never went to bed wearing those longjohns


PR actually says that she put JB in longjonhs when se put her to bed.
You are convinced that this was a lie? Then, why lie about this?

 

[UKGuy]

But JonBenet was redressed, she never went to bed wearing those longjohns


PR actually says that she put JB in longjonhs when se put her to bed.
You are convinced that this was a lie? Then, why lie about this?

tumble,

So that how she was discovered in the basement reflects how she says she put her to bed.

But it was obviously intended that she be discovered minus her white gap top, but wearing her barbie-gown

Its doubtful if the statements given by Patsy or John regarding putting JonBenet to bed, can be relied upon since they are not only contradicted, at later dates, by themselves but also the fact that JonBenet was awake eager to eat pineapple.

But what if JonBenet never slept in her own bed, what if she never went to bed, what if she was killed whilst still dressed in her day-clothes?

All the evidence suggests she never went to bed, so how come the toilet rage?

JonBenet was also sexually assaulted, I blelieve there are no forensic traces from this assault on her longjohns, something you might expect if she was wearing them to bed?

IMO the forensic evidence is not strong enough to support toilet rage as the motivating factor behind her death.


.

 

[BBB167893]

"So you are left with bedwetting as motivation for the death of a 6-year old girl, maybe in some deprived inner city area, where violence may be a norm, but this is Married-To-A-Millionare wannabee socialite Mrs Ramsey, with no history of corporal punishment."

Please, UKGuy, don't waste my time with THAT bs!

Fine, you don't like the "toilet rage" scenario. So, give us one you like! Heck, I'm not too enamored of the "toilet rage" biz myself.

 

[UKGuy]

"So you are left with bedwetting as motivation for the death of a 6-year old girl, maybe in some deprived inner city area, where violence may be a norm, but this is Married-To-A-Millionare wannabee socialite Mrs Ramsey, with no history of corporal punishment."

Please, UKGuy, don't waste my time with THAT bs!

Fine, you don't like the "toilet rage" scenario. So, give us one you like! Heck, I'm not too enamored of the "toilet rage" biz myself.

SuperDave,

Well I like to think of it as literate bs!

There are really only four theories left I like, one for each of the Ramsey's, and the collective one!

.

 

[BBB167893]

"Well I like to think of it as literate bs!"

Doesn't matter how literate it is!

List them for me, please. It helps to know where I'm going.

 

[Old Broad]

I have a question about the DNA that's been tested that was found on the underwear. I understand it was degraded so they weren't able to get a complete reading on it, but weren't they able to say it was from a caucasion male? I am wondering just where the underware was manufactured? Many times I've heard that the DNA could have come from a factory worker, but if the underware was manufactured in let's say china, then would it really seem likely the DNA could have come from a caucasion? Wasn't the underware packaged inside a sealed plastic bag?
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

OB

 

[BBB167893]

I have a question about the DNA that's been tested that was found on the underwear. I understand it was degraded so they weren't able to get a complete reading on it, but weren't they able to say it was from a caucasion male? I am wondering just where the underware was manufactured? Many times I've heard that the DNA could have come from a factory worker, but if the underware was manufactured in let's say china, then would it really seem likely the DNA could have come from a caucasion? Wasn't the underware packaged inside a sealed plastic bag?
Forgive me if this has been discussed before.

OB

OB, I shall attempt to intelligently answer you queries:

It was degraded. Only the lawyers and Private Eyes working for the Ramseys have said it was Caucasian. There's no proof of that or statement to that effect from any scientist who actually worked on it.

I've heard it was made in Vietnam or Hong Kong. You're assuming it came from a Caucasian, thus you say it isn't likely. But that's just spin, far as we know. They found human DNA in unopened packages of underwear from the same plant, if that helps you.

I believe it was sealed.

You have to remember, OB: this DNA was degraded. That takes time. It was likely there for weeks. That's the big one.

 

[Britt]

Many times I've heard that the DNA could have come from a factory worker, but if the underware was manufactured in let's say china, then would it really seem likely the DNA could have come from a caucasion?

To add to what SuperDave said...

At Forums For Justice Tricia posted what a professional criminalist told her about the DNA:

Excerpts:
...you can look at the statistics for a regular DNA sample and make a guess for race based on whichever race has the best stats. However, I am a Caucasian mutt with some Native American (Mongoloid) thrown in, yet my stats would suggest that I'm African-American! So while you might get an "indication" of race, it's by no means accurate -- it's basically just an educated guess.

***
But if the DNA is from semen or saliva or blood, then the DNA would only be an accurate indicator of gender, and the race would basically be a big guess.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=6994&page=3&pp=12

SuperDave is right. The Caucasian claim is Ramsey spin.

 

[rashomon]

rashomon,
JonBenet was sexually assaulted first, then wiped down, then dressed in the size-12 underwear, with longjohns added, but no socks, leaving her in her White Gap Top!

This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging.

If a Toilet Rage was the reason JonBenet was killed you would expect her staging to be consistent since its known at that point in time what scenario is being planned.

For example, she was meant to have been abducted from bed, so why not after wiping her down undress her completely and redress her in either in pijamas or nightgown?


If its a PDI can we assume she might get that bit worked out?

In a toilet rage theory this does not matter , what does is the fact they were left lying visible on the floor!

So if its Toilet Rage you will want to remove any evidence of JonBenet having a wetting/soiling accident regardless of when it occurred e.g. you want it off the BPD radar completely. So the soiled underwear and jeans upstairs should have been removed and the underwear washed by hand! We know JonBenet's killer has removed and added items to the crime scene.

None of this was done, and its what you would expect from someone trying to hide a toilet rage death.

Why should this be, because Toilet Rage was not the original motivation behind her death! Evidently some other motive was.

That toilet rage was not the motive is pure speculation.
Patsy for example could quite simply have forgotten to remove the jeans with the panties in them. Those panties obvioulsy weren't very dirty either.
And the panties JB had worn to the Whites' seem to be missing.

And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario.

It was the Ramseys' story that JonBenet had gone to bed, and regardless of whether the motive was sexual abuse or toilet rage, why then didn't they dress JB in her nightgown afterwards? Why leave her in her day-clothes from the waist up?

UkGuy, in prior posts you said this was a premeditated act.
Who abused JB in your opinion?
Who killed her? (Abuser and killer needn't be the same person).

 

[BBB167893]

"you can look at the statistics for a regular DNA sample and make a guess for race based on whichever race has the best stats. However, I am a Caucasian mutt with some Native American (Mongoloid) thrown in, yet my stats would suggest that I'm African-American! So while you might get an "indication" of race, it's by no means accurate -- it's basically just an educated guess.

***
But if the DNA is from semen or saliva or blood, then the DNA would only be an accurate indicator of gender, and the race would basically be a big guess."

Look at me: white, American Indian, some Japanese.

"The Caucasian claim is Ramsey spin."

Does the phrase, "far as I can throw them" mean anything?

"And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario."

There are about five different intruder motives in one man!

"This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging."

They said there was "staging WITHIN staging."

 

[UKGuy]

This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging.


That toilet rage was not the motive is pure speculation.
Patsy for example could quite simply have forgotten to remove the jeans with the panties in them. Those panties obvioulsy weren't very dirty either.
And the panties JB had worn to the Whites' seem to be missing.

And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario.

It was the Ramseys' story that JonBenet had gone to bed, and regardless of whether the motive was sexual abuse or toilet rage, why then didn't they dress JB in her nightgown afterwards? Why leave her in her day-clothes from the waist up?

UkGuy, in prior posts you said this was a premeditated act.
Who abused JB in your opinion?
Who killed her? (Abuser and killer needn't be the same person).

rashomon,

This is a mere assumption. Dr. Werner Spitz and quite a few others are of the opinion that the head bash came first. And the CASKU experts asaid that the paintbrush injury and the garrote contraption was staging.

Sure if you are discussing the cause of death.

That toilet rage was not the motive is pure speculation.
Patsy for example could quite simply have forgotten to remove the jeans with the panties in them. Those panties obvioulsy weren't very dirty either.
And the panties JB had worn to the Whites' seem to be missing.

Well I dont thinks its speculative when I offer sound reasoning along with forensic evidence.

And whether the motive was toilet rage or sexual assault, the stager didn't get it consistent in either case, for a kidnapping for ransom would contradict the strangling by a garrote scenario.

Thank you for making my point for me, tell all the Toilet Rage PDI theorists too.

JonBenet's death was staged, and its possible that her head trauma was meant to be part of this staging, I have an open mind on this, since I accept it may also either have been intentional or accidental.

Who abused JB in your opinion?

There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.

Who killed her? (Abuser and killer needn't be the same person).

Depends on which of the latter possibilities you consider the most likely.

The violence used suggests John.

As an antidote to the bias in theory forming that is prevalent where opinions are based on staged forensic evidence.

Its also possible the assumptions we make about John may also apply to Patsy.

That is Patsy may have had lesbian preferences that she indulged herself with via JonBenet!


.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.

I've always wondered if the prior sexual abuse wasn't incurred not out of sexual gratification but out of corporal punishment administered to JonBenet (imo, by Patsy for her incontinence.)

 

[Britt]

There are four possibilities as to who abused JonBenet.

1. John had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
2. Patsy had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
3. Burke had an incestuous relationship with JonBenet.
4. Some combination of the above.

5. Patsy physically abused JonBenét.

I've always wondered if the prior sexual abuse wasn't incurred not out of sexual gratification but out of corporal punishment administered to JonBenet (imo, by Patsy for her incontinence.)

Exactly. As many have pointed out in this case, vaginal abuse doesn't necessarily mean sexual abuse...

One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who was being physically abused. ITRMI p. 253 pb