The Eighth Pair of Underwear

[BBB167893]

I agree. All of the postings done on this lead to one conclusion: they wouldn't.

 

[UKGuy]

The main question is: why would an intruder bother putting them on anyway?

How many intruders are that concerned for their victims welfare they pause mid-crime to change the victims underwear?

Its very likely that JonBenet's size-6 underwear were taken off her to remove any forensic evidence, and the size-12 Wednesday pair placed on her to mask her sexual assault. The Wednesday is important to someone who knew she wore a Wednesday pair.

And that someone may be Patsy since she may have overseen JonBenet changing from the soiled pair earlier on that day, or/and someone at the White's was in the toilet with JonBenet and saw the Wednesday pair. Either way that was a detail that mattered to whomever killed JonBenet, its lost on us.

So it appears either JonBenet was killed whilst being sexually abused or sexually abused in a punative manner, imo she was killed to silence her!


.

 

[tumble]

Its very likely that JonBenet's size-6 underwear were taken off her to remove any forensic evidence, and the size-12 Wednesday pair placed on her to mask her sexual assault. The Wednesday is important to someone who knew she wore a Wednesday pair.

This just doesn't hold water. From Jayelles experiment we know that replacing a size 6 with a size 12 would be noticed by ANYONE even if the brodery were the same. And that someone at the Whites would think that 'oh, she had wednesday panties at the Party then she must have had them all night' is just false.

So it appears either JonBenet was killed whilst being sexually abused or sexually abused in a punative manner, imo she was killed to silence her!

So the perp starts molesting her or punish her and at one point sees he/she has gone to far and makes the decision to kill her. Yes why not, I don't have a better suggestion... just have a hard time imagining this part...

 

[LinasK]

Its very likely that JonBenet's size-6 underwear were taken off her to remove any forensic evidence, and the size-12 Wednesday pair placed on her to mask her sexual assault. The Wednesday is important to someone who knew she wore a Wednesday pair.

This just doesn't hold water. From Jayelles experiment we know that replacing a size 6 with a size 12 would be noticed by ANYONE even if the brodery were the same. And that someone at the Whites would think that 'oh, she had wednesday panties at the Party then she must have had them all night' is just false.

Yes, to a rational normal person. But if the stager Patsy/John had been up all night, panicked, not thinking clearly, and the lighting was bad, they might not have taken notice of the oversize. Pasty knew they were size 12's but might have been more concerned with the Wednesday issue. John might not have been aware of the size difference if it was the first time they were taken out of the package. So I still think it was one of the two of them...

 

[UKGuy]

Its very likely that JonBenet's size-6 underwear were taken off her to remove any forensic evidence, and the size-12 Wednesday pair placed on her to mask her sexual assault. The Wednesday is important to someone who knew she wore a Wednesday pair.

This just doesn't hold water. From Jayelles experiment we know that replacing a size 6 with a size 12 would be noticed by ANYONE even if the brodery were the same. And that someone at the Whites would think that 'oh, she had wednesday panties at the Party then she must have had them all night' is just false.

So it appears either JonBenet was killed whilst being sexually abused or sexually abused in a punative manner, imo she was killed to silence her!

So the perp starts molesting her or punish her and at one point sees he/she has gone to far and makes the decision to kill her. Yes why not, I don't have a better suggestion... just have a hard time imagining this part...

tumble,

replacing a size 6 with a size 12 would be noticed by ANYONE

I agree, common sense suggests that this would be the case.

But if you accept JonBenet was redressed, and some people dont think she was, then we have to try and explain why size-6 underwear was replaced with size-12. Note I did not emphasise Wednesday for Wednesday pair!

IMO that is not the important aspect it is the fact? that the size-6 pair were removed from the crime scene!

This was followed by staging its at this point consideration as to whether day of the week, color, size matters?

But one thing I think? we have established is that redressing JonBenet in that particular pair of underwear matter big time to her killer?

And depending on your theory IDI , RDI etc this assumption can be slotted in without having to worry too much about being accussed of it being opinion based only.

and this is obviously meant to be rheorical:

replacing a size 6 with a size 12 would be noticed by ANYONE

Have you ever thought this may have been deliberate, since you did notice?




.

 

[Camper]

I have not been totally following the panty issue, but enough for me.

My issue lies with the fact that the 'intruder' makes himself/herself totally comfy in the Ramsey home

Preparing an unwrinkled 'Ramblingsome' note and putting it on the stairs AFTER

Trudging up and down the stairs (carrying the victim to entangle Christmas garland in her hair, YET The victim has DUST ON THE BOTTOM OF HER FEET, HUH?)
Finding oversized specific day of the week panties THAT were only known WHERE they were kept by family and JON BENET)
Cleaning the victim
Redressing the victim
Wrapping the child in a blankie

This so smells of a FAMILY MEMBER - an OLDER family member AT least in prepping the crime scene.

WHAT outside perp would BOTHER PREPPING THE CRIME SCENE?

YET I do think JonBenet could have gotten the size 12 panties and worn them - silky day of the week panties form tiny wrinkles and small amount of fabric in one place, not HUGE and could have been undetected under velvet pants. Cotton panties make larger and bulgier wrinkle lines. Silky day of the week panties go with the flow and do not create constriction with velvet fabric, cotton would.

WHO at a Christmas party is going to check for wrinkle lines under JonBenets velvet pants, with her lovely face and childhood beauty to look at?

JonBenet could have soiled her day of the week size 6 panties BEFORE she went to the party. Just because soiled panties were found on the bathroom floor, WE donut know WHEN they were put there?

Correct me where you think my words are faulty.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I have not been totally following the panty issue, but enough for me.

My issue lies with the fact that the 'intruder' makes himself/herself totally comfy in the Ramsey home

Preparing an unwrinkled 'Ramblingsome' note and putting it on the stairs AFTER

Trudging up and down the stairs (carrying the victim to entangle Christmas garland in her hair, YET The victim has DUST ON THE BOTTOM OF HER FEET, HUH?)
Finding oversized specific day of the week panties THAT were only known WHERE they were kept by family and JON BENET)
Cleaning the victim
Redressing the victim
Wrapping the child in a blankie

This so smells of a FAMILY MEMBER - an OLDER family member AT least in prepping the crime scene.

WHAT outside perp would BOTHER PREPPING THE CRIME SCENE?

YET I do think JonBenet could have gotten the size 12 panties and worn them - silky day of the week panties form tiny wrinkles and small amount of fabric in one place, not HUGE and could have been undetected under velvet pants. Cotton panties make larger and bulgier wrinkle lines. Silky day of the week panties go with the flow and do not create constriction with velvet fabric, cotton would.

WHO at a Christmas party is going to check for wrinkle lines under JonBenets velvet pants, with her lovely face and childhood beauty to look at?

JonBenet could have soiled her day of the week size 6 panties BEFORE she went to the party. Just because soiled panties were found on the bathroom floor, WE donut know WHEN they were put there?

Correct me where you think my words are faulty.

.

Camper,

Nice posts no faults I can see.

There was obviously no intruder, there is no forensic-evidence that links to an unknown intruder.

If JonBenet had worn those size-12's to the Whites then BPD would have known all about it, and underwear questions would not be required.

Fiber analysis of JonBenet's black velvet pants would have resulted in ruling in or out whether she wore those size-12's to the White's, similarly the size-12's should have velvet fibers on them?

So I reckon the police know what the story is here, even if we dont, but if it was controversial then like John's black woolen fibers we would have heard about it by now!

Also Patsy obviously checked JonBenet over prior to leaving for the White's, and wearing size-12 underwear that was meant to be a gift for a cousin, is not something she would have allowed, Patsy was instilling her dress code into JonBenet from an early age.


.

 

[BBB167893]

"How many intruders are that concerned for their victims welfare they pause mid-crime to change the victims underwear?"

Can't think of any.

"So it appears either JonBenet was killed whilst being sexually abused or sexually abused in a punative manner, imo she was killed to silence her!"

Maybe.

"My issue lies with the fact that the 'intruder' makes himself/herself totally comfy in the Ramsey home Preparing an unwrinkled 'Ramblingsome' note and putting it on the stairs AFTER"

Yeah, especially since after the murder, we've seen how real intruders operate.

"Trudging up and down the stairs (carrying the victim to entangle Christmas garland in her hair, YET The victim has DUST ON THE BOTTOM OF HER FEET, HUH?)
Finding oversized specific day of the week panties THAT were only known WHERE they were kept by family and JON BENET)
Cleaning the victim
Redressing the victim
Wrapping the child in a blankie

This so smells of a FAMILY MEMBER - an OLDER family member AT least in prepping the crime scene.

WHAT outside perp would BOTHER PREPPING THE CRIME SCENE?"

Camper, go here:

http://www.annonline.com/interviews/970623/

It's an interview with top profiler Robert Ressler. Listen carefully to his comments on the Ramseys hiring their own experts and about kidnapping aspects.

"YET I do think JonBenet could have gotten the size 12 panties and worn them - silky day of the week panties form tiny wrinkles and small amount of fabric in one place, not HUGE and could have been undetected under velvet pants. Cotton panties make larger and bulgier wrinkle lines. Silky day of the week panties go with the flow and do not create constriction with velvet fabric, cotton would. WHO at a Christmas party is going to check for wrinkle lines under JonBenets velvet pants, with her lovely face and childhood beauty to look at?"

True. Besides, who would think to look?

"JonBenet could have soiled her day of the week size 6 panties BEFORE she went to the party. Just because soiled panties were found on the bathroom floor, WE donut know WHEN they were put there?"

Well, I doubt they'd be there for days!

 

[rashomon]

I believe it was Patsy who wiped her down because of the fact that JonBenet's labia were also wiped down. NO MALE....Burke or John, would think to do something like that.....only a female would.

But maybe a male who had been chronically abusing JonBenet would do that.

 

[BBB167893]

But maybe a male who had been chronically abusing JonBenet would do that.

Maybe.

 

[tumble]

tumble,


I agree, common sense suggests that this would be the case.

But if you accept JonBenet was redressed, and some people dont think she was, then we have to try and explain why size-6 underwear was replaced with size-12. Note I did not emphasise Wednesday for Wednesday pair!

IMO that is not the important aspect it is the fact? that the size-6 pair were removed from the crime scene!

This was followed by staging its at this point consideration as to whether day of the week, color, size matters?

But one thing I think? we have established is that redressing JonBenet in that particular pair of underwear matter big time to her killer?

And depending on your theory IDI , RDI etc this assumption can be slotted in without having to worry too much about being accussed of it being opinion based only.

and this is obviously meant to be rheorical:



Have you ever thought this may have been deliberate, since you did notice?




.

I think it was absolutely a deliberate act to dress JBR in the size 12. I just don't think it was supposed to look like she wasn't redressed. I think it was supposed to look like an intruder redressed her. The staging doesn't make sense in this case but it is staging, staging just as strange as the battery wiping.
Strange because there is no sensible answer to SD's question.
'why would an intruder redress her in the first place'

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I can't see why an angry vengeful murderous intruder bent on targeting John Ramsey would bother to redress the child he just killed. Certainly this person would not have stopped to wrap her in a blanket, either.

Usually wouldn't a killer making a statement of revenge like that want the victim's father (the actual intended victim, as JonBenet was chosen because she is his daughter, according to the note) to further suffer by finding his child not only dead but treated disrespectfully, perhaps even displayed for optimum shock and horror?

I have to agree that a male who had been chronically abusing Jonbenet would be more likely to think to wipe her genitalia thoroughly. I think Patsy was the redresser, though. She dressed JonBenet in life, why not in death, especially that last time? I think she was supposed to dress her in the Barbie nightie and couldn't do it, so she just put on the long johns to give an indication of being dressed for bed. I don't know for sure, JSB.

 

[BBB167893]

"Strange because there is no sensible answer to SD's question.
'why would an intruder redress her in the first place'"

There isn't is there?

 

[tumble]

I think Patsy was the redresser

Yes, thats a good guess, she having 'staging' as a major hobby and all.

 

[UKGuy]

I can't see why an angry vengeful murderous intruder bent on targeting John Ramsey would bother to redress the child he just killed. Certainly this person would not have stopped to wrap her in a blanket, either.

Usually wouldn't a killer making a statement of revenge like that want the victim's father (the actual intended victim, as JonBenet was chosen because she is his daughter, according to the note) to further suffer by finding his child not only dead but treated disrespectfully, perhaps even displayed for optimum shock and horror?

I have to agree that a male who had been chronically abusing Jonbenet would be more likely to think to wipe her genitalia thoroughly. I think Patsy was the redresser, though. She dressed JonBenet in life, why not in death, especially that last time? I think she was supposed to dress her in the Barbie nightie and couldn't do it, so she just put on the long johns to give an indication of being dressed for bed. I don't know for sure, JSB.

Nuisanceposter,

It's not rocket science is it, intruders, sociopaths usually come prepared, with a crime-kit, to conduct there crimes, and if redressing was so important then the requisite clothing would have been brought along.

Intruders just want to get in and out, with or without their victim, I dont think there is such a thing as an Intruder Dress Code.

The reason the Barbie-Gown was not placed on JonBenet may have been due to her being in rigor-mortis?

The staging was so successful in this case, people have never stopped looking for an intruder.


.

 

[BBB167893]

"The staging was so successful in this case, people have never stopped looking for an intruder."

I think you'll find those people never dealt with staged scenes before.

 

[tumble]

The staging was so successful in this case, people have never stopped looking for an intruder.

Yes I agree, but isn't it so that staging is notoriously hard to prove.
I am thinking about the Sheppard case for example.

 

[BBB167893]

If I might get off-subject for a moment:

Today is JB's birthday. She would have been sweet sixteen.

Actually, it's not THAT hard to prove staging. Take the classic example: a person is shot and the killer tries to put the gun in their hand to make it look like suicide. Turns out the victim was left-handed...get it?

 

[tumble]

Actually, it's not THAT hard to prove staging. Take the classic example: a person is shot and the killer tries to put the gun in their hand to make it look like suicide. Turns out the victim was left-handed...get it?

Good point. Guns residue on hands have revealed some stagings indeed.
What I was getting is for example this flashlight,
with the batteries wiped on a flashlight belonging to the R's staging it is pretty obvious that they have wiped it, but it is hard to prove. You have to prove that the batteries was infact wiped by them.

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, that would be the hard part.