The Grand Jury

[Ames]

The soiled pants found on the floor inside out belonged to JonBenet. I would assume those are the pants she wore during the day before being told to dress for the trip to the Whites.

According to LHP Patsy and the kids would leave their clothes where they took them off. So JonBenet was getting undressed in her bathroom and like all six-year-olds would place their hand on the bathroom counter and take their pants off using their feet, hence the pants being inside out. I would assume JonBenet, if left to her own devices would put on her black velvet pants without changing her panties. She wears soiled panties to the Whites.

At this point, JonBenet comes out of her bathroom and there is Mommy holding the red turtleneck. She puts it on JonBenet, A defiant JonBenet goes into her bathroom, removes the red turtleneck, balls it up and throws it on the counter. She then proceeds to put her white Gap top and black vest on.

My belief is that Patsy did not know JonBenet had soiled her panties until she took her to the toilet the night of her murder.

The soiled pants and panties found on JB's floor are ones that she had wore Christmas day, to play in....according to Patsy.

 

[Ames]

Is it possible the original underwear JonBenet was wearing that night was rinsed out, dried, and put back in a drawer? Wasn't there a washer and a dryer in the basement? Maybe the "intruder" was doing laundry while writing the ransom note.

Is it possible the oversized underwear was purchased for wearing over a pullup/diaper or would they still be too big?

Yes, there was a washer and dryer in the basement, and I believe that's where the white blanket, that she was found wrapped in, was. And I also believe that the nightgown that was found beside of her, had also been in the dryer, and came out with the blanket, either by static cling, or was balled up inside the blanket...that happens to me all the time, when I wash a blanket or sheets, there is ALWAYS something balled up inside of it, when I take it out of the dryer. And yes, that is possible that the original panties were being washed and dried and put up.

 

[Ames]

As I said, I don't equate the word "stained" as meaning "soaked" and if she was not clinically dead when wiped and when other staging was performed she would not have had postmortem release until she was clinically dead. Being dead and someone else thinking you are dead are two different matters, imo. I thought I explained this but guess I was not clear. We may not agree but it isn't because what I said in th earlier post was not correct. :innocent:

I agree. She could have still been alive, but unconscious when she was wiped down and the clean undies were put on her. At that point, all they had on their minds, was removing evidence. I believe that she was obviously still alive, although I don't believe that her parents thought so, when the paintbrush was inserted. She bled, they had second thoughts, so the cleaned her up and placed the clean undies on her. AFTER that, IMO...came the garotting, which finished her off..so to speak. And THAT is when the postmortem release happened. That's why the long johns were overlooked...there was no urine on them at the time of the wiping down. I believe that they were so concerned with removing evidence that would point to them, fingerprints..etc...that they forgot the soiled pants in JB's bedroom. They probably didn't even go back into her room, after taking her down to the basement....they were too concerned with wiping her down, and wiping the flashlight down, and writing a RN. They probably didn't give those pants on the floor of her room, a second thought, because actually even though it had to do with soiling....it had nothing to do with Steve Thomas' theory. Bedwetting, and soiling the pants during the day, are two different things. Patsy got angry because she was tired, had to get up early the next morning, and JB WET THE BED....AGAIN. That wouldn't have anything to do with soiled pants on the bedroom floor...IMO..and thats why they weren't even given a second thought. And they could have been soiled not because she pooped in them, but..because she just didn't know how to wipe very well. And besides, they thought that they had their tracks covered, so why would would anyone have even suspected a bedwetting incident causing Patsy's rage that killed JB....when they had a RN, saying that an intruder did it?

 

[Ames]

Imo the longjohns were put on her together with the oversized Bloomies.

HMMMM...now there is a thought, good point. I know that in Patsy's interview, the interviewer (I can't remember who asked the question)....asked her WHY she chose long johns to put on her to sleep in, he apparently thought it was odd too. And Patsy's reply was that she was looking for pajama bottoms, but that was all that she could find. I have ALWAYS thought that it was weird that she would have chose long johns...to place on a sleeping child, that she didn't want to wake up...those things are like trying to put on pantyhose, they are so tight. So, what you are saying makes sense to me.

 

[DeeDee249]

I don't know if there is a way to tell if the panties were urine-stained by osmosis (being put on her to replace possible blood-stained and urine-soaked size 6 panties, and then having the still-wet long johns pulled up over the clean panties) OR if they were wet at the same time. We already know that the autopsy showed residue of blood on her thighs, in sufficient quantity to require wiping down of the area, which the autopsy indicated had been done because fibers were found on her pubic area. I believe that the size 12s were put on her after the sexual assault and the wiping of her pubic and thigh area, then the long johns, which at that point were clean. Then the rest of the staging was completed, she was left wrapped in the white blanket, and then after she was left for dead, she then DID finally die and the post-mortem urine release occured, unbeknownst to anyone. The basement activities were done in the dark, with a flashlight. The pink nightgown wouldn't have been noticed.
Does anyone know if any mention was ever made about the white blanket having urine on it? JBR was brought up from the basement without it, and I don't believe it went to the morgue with her.

 

[Ames]

I don't know if there is a way to tell if the panties were urine-stained by osmosis (being put on her to replace possible blood-stained and urine-soaked size 6 panties, and then having the still-wet long johns pulled up over the clean panties) OR if they were wet at the same time. We already know that the autopsy showed residue of blood on her thighs, in sufficient quantity to require wiping down of the area, which the autposy also indicated was done because fibers were found. I believe that the size 12s were put on her after the sexual assault and the wiping of her pubic and thigh area, then the long johns, which at that point were clean. Then the rest of the staging was completed, she was left wrapped in the white blanket, and then after she was left for dead, she then DID finally die and the post-mortem urine release occured, unbeknownst to anyone. The basement activities were done in the dark, with a flashlight. The pink nightgown wouldn't have been noticed.
Does anyone know if any mention was ever made about the white blanket having urine on it? JBR was brought up from the basement without it, and I don't believe it went to the morgue with her.

I have never read before, that the blanket had urine on it. I did a search, and I came up with nothing. So, to my knowledge, the blanket did NOT have urine on it. Now how urine could get on her long johns, but not on the blanket, I have no clue. I have read that it wasn't much urine....and I also read that the reason for this was probably because she had already emptied her bladder, beforehand....(this could possibly be when she wet the bed?)....so, if it wasn't much, then it was just enough to wet the longjohns, but not enough to soak through to the blanket.

I want to add that....JB was a bedwetter....that's a known fact. John supposedly brought a sleeping JB upstairs and placed her in the bed, Patsy changed her clothes....and she was never awaken that night, to be taken to use the bathroom. So, it stands to reason...that because of this...she wet the bed that night. (And if she was ZONKED OUT...as Patsy describes her, when she was put into bed, then you know that she isn't going to wake up on her own, and go to the bathroom during the night). AND THAT is the reason that I believe that the blanket did not get wet from urine....she had emptied her bladder when she wet the bed, so...when she had her post mortem release, there wasn't much in there to be released...just enough to wet her long johns...I don't believe that they were soaked through...or else the blanket would have gotten wet too.

 

[DeeDee249]

The pants that were found with the soiled panties, were the ones that she wore that day to play in, not the ones that she wore to the White's, and they were found on her bedroom floor.

Thanks, Ames- I hadn't remembered that.
As far as the long johns being put on her back to front, I think the coroner would have mentioned that, BUT IF he were unfamiliar with little girl's long johns, (as opposed to boys' which have a fly front and therefore easy to tell back from front) he may not have noticed it.
Although, my daughter had thermal underwear like that, and it was pretty form-fitting. There was a definite "bump" for the derriere, and if they were on backwards, they would pull at the rear and sag at the front.

 

[UKGuy]

HMMMM...now there is a thought, good point. I know that in Patsy's interview, the interviewer (I can't remember who asked the question)....asked her WHY she chose long johns to put on her to sleep in, he apparently thought it was odd too. And Patsy's reply was that she was looking for pajama bottoms, but that was all that she could find. I have ALWAYS thought that it was weird that she would have chose long johns...to place on a sleeping child, that she didn't want to wake up...those things are like trying to put on pantyhose, they are so tight. So, what you are saying makes sense to me.

Ames,

Yes it is one of those subtle aspects of the case, that until you accept that the parents accounts were inconsistent and at times contradictory, that does all that rhetoric about not being able to find her pajama bottoms, which were under her pillow all the time, make sense.

One implication is was JonBenet wearing her black velvet pants when killed, and were these then removed?

Is it possible that matters are actually reversed, that JonBenet dressed in her barbie-gown, size-6 underwear and no socks, was the victim of a sexual assault?

So what's the big deal regarding her size-6's that they have to vanish? It cannot be a toilet incident since her longjohns and size-12's are urine-stained, and there is those soiled pants lying on her bathroom floor, items you may wish to also be excluded so to hide any consideration of a toilet incident, also why highlight this as an issue by redressing her in longjohns, why not simply redress her in her barbie-gown or pajamas from the outset?

This whole Toilet Incident theory is I reckon, a red herring, its like the intruder theory, sounds good, and seems to explain much, but on closer examination, it really does not match up with the forensic evidence.

It looks to me as if JonBenet was being sexually assaulted, then semi-asphyxiated, then whacked on the head, then cleaned up, then redressed.

imo the longjohns, the size-12's, and the white blankets were deliberately added to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted, otherwise just what is the rationale for redressing her in longjohns?


.

 

[UKGuy]

I have never read before, that the blanket had urine on it. I did a search, and I came up with nothing. So, to my knowledge, the blanket did NOT have urine on it. Now how urine could get on her long johns, but not on the blanket, I have no clue. I have read that it wasn't much urine....and I also read that the reason for this was probably because she had already emptied her bladder, beforehand....(this could possibly be when she wet the bed?)....so, if it wasn't much, then it was just enough to wet the longjohns, but not enough to soak through to the blanket.

I want to add that....JB was a bedwetter....that's a known fact. John supposedly brought a sleeping JB upstairs and placed her in the bed, Patsy changed her clothes....and she was never awaken that night, to be taken to use the bathroom. So, it stands to reason...that because of this...she wet the bed that night. (And if she was ZONKED OUT...as Patsy describes her, when she was put into bed, then you know that she isn't going to wake up on her own, and go to the bathroom during the night). AND THAT is the reason that I believe that the blanket did not get wet from urine....she had emptied her bladder when she wet the bed, so...when she had her post mortem release, there wasn't much in there to be released...just enough to wet her long johns...I don't believe that they were soaked through...or else the blanket would have gotten wet too.

Ames,

Patsy changed her clothes....and she was never awaken that night, to be taken to use the bathroom. So, it stands to reason...that because of this...she wet the bed that night. (And if she was ZONKED OUT...as Patsy describes her, when she was put into bed, then you know that she isn't going to wake up on her own, and go to the bathroom during the night).

This would be demolished in court: pineapple residue was discovered in JonBenet's digestive tract, so she was awake at some point after arriving home from the White's, so she may have visited the toilet? If Patsy changed her clothes who changed her into the size-12's?

The longjohns may have been soaked through though, as may her size-12 underwear have been, to pass enough urine to soak both garments suggests a substantial quantity of urine was discharged e.g. a postmortem urine-release probably incorporating the fluid from her pineapple snack.

There is no record of the white blankets being stained/wet with urine, you should expect this from a postmortem release whilst wrapped in them. The simple conclusion is that the postmortem release occurred elsewhere, e.g. the size-12's are stained on the front, she was discovered lying on her back, and that her killer/stager was fully aware that this had taken place, but did not consider it significant?

 

[UKGuy]

I don't know if there is a way to tell if the panties were urine-stained by osmosis (being put on her to replace possible blood-stained and urine-soaked size 6 panties, and then having the still-wet long johns pulled up over the clean panties) OR if they were wet at the same time. We already know that the autopsy showed residue of blood on her thighs, in sufficient quantity to require wiping down of the area, which the autopsy indicated had been done because fibers were found on her pubic area. I believe that the size 12s were put on her after the sexual assault and the wiping of her pubic and thigh area, then the long johns, which at that point were clean. Then the rest of the staging was completed, she was left wrapped in the white blanket, and then after she was left for dead, she then DID finally die and the post-mortem urine release occured, unbeknownst to anyone. The basement activities were done in the dark, with a flashlight. The pink nightgown wouldn't have been noticed.
Does anyone know if any mention was ever made about the white blanket having urine on it? JBR was brought up from the basement without it, and I don't believe it went to the morgue with her.

DeeDee249,

There is no record of dampness or urine-staining on the white blankets, Fleet White even returned to the wine-cellar for a second look, so I'm sure he would have commented if there were?

imo the blankets, longjohns, and size-12 underwear are simply there to mask/hide her original sexual assault, and the ransom note offers a ridiculous explanation why she is not in her bed, but down in the basement.

If this was a toileting incident, and you are Patsy, why do you decide to draw attention to JonBenet's potential for bedwetting by redressing her in longjohns, what is that all about, and just for good measure lets fling in a pair of clean size-12's, that will make any detective think this looks normal to me? Duh!

.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Yes it is one of those subtle aspects of the case, that until you accept that the parents accounts were inconsistent and at times contradictory, that does all that rhetoric about not being able to find her pajama bottoms, which were under her pillow all the time, make sense.

OMG, I didn't realize that the pj bottoms were under her pillow!!!!!!! I thought that it was just a gown or something. HMMM...now that IS strange. She said that she couldn't find any to put on her...duhhhh..and you know that she probably had more than one pair.

One implication is was JonBenet wearing her black velvet pants when killed, and were these then removed?

You know, I have often wondered that myself. And what doesn't make sense...I mean...ANOTHER thing that doesn't make sense, is....IF Patsy actually DID change her into long johns, then why didn't she change her shirt too? They both acted like they just didn't want to wake her up, well...then...why change anything at all? Just let her sleep in the clothes that she wore to the Whites. Why put on those skin tight long johns, and not change the shirt too? (I mean IF she ever went to bed that night)..

Is it possible that matters are actually reversed, that JonBenet dressed in her barbie-gown, size-6 underwear and no socks, was the victim of a sexual assault?

So what's the big deal regarding her size-6's that they have to vanish? It cannot be a toilet incident since her longjohns and size-12's are urine-stained, and there is those soiled pants lying on her bathroom floor, items you may wish to also be excluded so to hide any consideration of a toilet incident, also why highlight this as an issue by redressing her in longjohns, why not simply redress her in her barbie-gown or pajamas from the outset?

This whole Toilet Incident theory is I reckon, a red herring, its like the intruder theory, sounds good, and seems to explain much, but on closer examination, it really does not match up with the forensic evidence.

It looks to me as if JonBenet was being sexually assaulted, then semi-asphyxiated, then whacked on the head, then cleaned up, then redressed.

imo the longjohns, the size-12's, and the white blankets were deliberately added to hide the fact that she had been sexually assaulted, otherwise just what is the rationale for redressing her in longjohns?


.

As far as I can tell...and I have done a search on the internet, and came up with nothing...that tells me if the blanket had urine on it too. I have read alot of articles, and interviews...and urine on the blanket is never mentioned. SO, how ..in YOUR opinion...did the urine end up on the panties and the long johns, but not on the blanket? That's what I can't figure out, unless....she had the post mortem release of urine, but it wasn't alot (I have read somewhere, that the reason that it wasn't alot, is because she had possibly emptied her bladder, while she was alive, a few hours before)....it went un-noticed for whatever reason, and then they wrapped her in the blanket. Maybe the wrapping in the blanket came last, after the post-mortem release, and thats why there isn't any on the blanket. What is your opinion??

 

[Toltec]

BOESP,
We shall just have to agree to disagree then.

Urine-stained longjohns and underwear in my estimation add up to a postmortem urine release of some kind. I agree.

Why place clean size-12's on JonBenet and ignore the urine-stained longjohns? Because they were both placed during the staging process.

If JonBenet was sexually assaulted prior to being placed into the wine-cellar why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored? see above

When JonBenet was wrapped in those white blankets why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored? She was wrapped after she died.

When JonBenet was wiped down, why were her urine-stained longjohns ignored? Longjohns put on during staging process.

Why were her size-6 underwear removed, and the flashlight wiped clean? Flashlight wiped down because the Ramseys wanted LE to believe the intruder brought it in. The size 6 soiled underwear and the remaining duct-tape went into Patsy's fur boots, as in out the door.

So a crime-scene was constructed removing evidence of a homicide yet her killer left evidence of the initiating factor on JonBenet in the form of urine-stained longjohns and underwear, and soiled pants upstairs in her bathroom. This is inconsistent with Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory.
The urine stained longjohns and size 12 underwear were there because after being strangled to death, the urine was released from JB's body.

.

[BJonBenet most likely was wearing her red turtleneck and the pair of playpants because she was going to get on a plane early next morning. ]My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head in JonBenet's bathroom. Patsy had discovered that JonBenet soiled herself and her size 6 panties were also soiled. She had JonBenet remove her clothes so that she could give her a quick bath. JonBenet was not about to get in the tub and a struggle ensued whereas Patsy lost it..[/B]

This is but one of two scenarios I play around with.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think the main reason for replacement of the size- 6 panties was blood, not urine. There was evidence of wiped-off blood on her thighs at the autopsy, and then there is also the small drops of blood that seeped out unnoticed onto the size-12s after she was dead, of which the stagers were unaware.
The post-mortem release would have had to occur before she was wrapped in the blanket, or it, too, would have urine on it. But I must say that things were so sloppily done after LE and the coroner arrived that the blanket may never have even been tested for urine. After all, the spoon in the bowl od pineapple was allegedly never tested for DNA from saliva to see who had it in their mouth that night.
Now the blanket was taken for some testing because the mysterious pubic hair that wasn't (it was actually PR's arm hair - ancillary hair, and NOT an underarm hair - axillary hair) so hopefully it was tested for urine and blood as well.

 

[rashomon]

[BJonBenet most likely was wearing her red turtleneck and the pair of playpants because she was going to get on a plane early next morning. ]My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head in JonBenet's bathroom. Patsy had discovered that JonBenet soiled herself and her size 6 panties were also soiled. She had JonBenet remove her clothes so that she could give her a quick bath. JonBenet was not about to get in the tub and a struggle ensued whereas Patsy lost it..[/b]

This is but one of two scenarios I play around with.

This is one of my scenarios too. It would explain why her underwear was changed. Only if it was like that, then Patsy must have cleaned up JonBenet very thoroughly afterward, for otherwise rests of of feces would probably have been found on the dead body.

I don't think JonBenet ever went to bed on that night. Her pj bottoms which were found under her pillow point in that direction too.

jmo

 

[rashomon]

If this was a toileting incident, and you are Patsy, why do you decide to draw attention to JonBenet's potential for bedwetting by redressing her in longjohns, what is that all about, and just for good measure lets fling in a pair of clean size-12's, that will make any detective think this looks normal to me? Duh!

The urine on the longjohns and her underwear was probably released after death without the Ramseys being aware of it.

Suppose JonBenet soiled her size 4-6 Wednesday Bloomies, which resulted in Patsy's rage attack on her. The incriminating size 4-6 Bloomies are later removed, and Patsy remembers the other set of size 12-14 Bloomies she bought and puts them on her. In her panic, she many not even have realized how big they were - just grabbed that 'Wednesday pair' and put it on her.
Remember that despite Patsy's claims that the size 12s were kept in the bathroom, the police could NOT find the rest of the set, so Patsy probably hid it.

 

[UKGuy]

The urine on the longjohns and her underwear was probably released after death without the Ramseys being aware of it.

Suppose JonBenet soiled her size 4-6 Wednesday Bloomies, which resulted in Patsy's rage attack on her. The incriminating size 4-6 Bloomies are later removed, and Patsy remembers the other set of size 12-14 Bloomies she bought and puts them on her. In her panic, she many not even have realized how big they were - just grabbed that 'Wednesday pair' and put it on her.
Remember that despite Patsy's claims that the size 12s were kept in the bathroom, the police could NOT find the rest of the set, so Patsy probably hid it.

rashomon,

mmm, this is the Patsy is confused and panicking defense. If the toileting incident is over the discovery of the soiled size-6's, then why bother cleaning JonBenet up, and redressing her in those outrageous size-12's, both draw attention immediately to the toileting aspect?

e.g. so JonBenet is clean but her soiled underwear is left lying on the bathroom floor, why do that, why leave direct evidence lying about?

There were no size-12's recovered from the bathroom drawer.

The size-12's were not kept in the bathroom, Patsy alleged she thought thats where they were, but were allegedly in JonBenet's bedroom dresser drawer, placed there by Patsy on a request from JonBenet?

None of which I accept, the explanations are simply more Patsy spin and fabrication, and of course, how come the Ramseys later handed in a pack size-12's allegedly discovered in a packing crate?

What the forensic evidence suggests is that it was not urine or soiled underwear that JonBenet's killer deliberately removed, but blood or semen?

In two separate independent examples, but both critical to a toileting incident, urine and soiled underwear were simply ignored, not so the blood and semen/blood stained size-6's, or her blood smeared crotch and thighs?

This suggests it is a sexual assault that is being hidden not a toilet incident?


.

 

[UKGuy]

OMG, I didn't realize that the pj bottoms were under her pillow!!!!!!! I thought that it was just a gown or something. HMMM...now that IS strange. She said that she couldn't find any to put on her...duhhhh..and you know that she probably had more than one pair.



You know, I have often wondered that myself. And what doesn't make sense...I mean...ANOTHER thing that doesn't make sense, is....IF Patsy actually DID change her into long johns, then why didn't she change her shirt too? They both acted like they just didn't want to wake her up, well...then...why change anything at all? Just let her sleep in the clothes that she wore to the Whites. Why put on those skin tight long johns, and not change the shirt too? (I mean IF she ever went to bed that night)..



As far as I can tell...and I have done a search on the internet, and came up with nothing...that tells me if the blanket had urine on it too. I have read alot of articles, and interviews...and urine on the blanket is never mentioned. SO, how ..in YOUR opinion...did the urine end up on the panties and the long johns, but not on the blanket? That's what I can't figure out, unless....she had the post mortem release of urine, but it wasn't alot (I have read somewhere, that the reason that it wasn't alot, is because she had possibly emptied her bladder, while she was alive, a few hours before)....it went un-noticed for whatever reason, and then they wrapped her in the blanket. Maybe the wrapping in the blanket came last, after the post-mortem release, and thats why there isn't any on the blanket. What is your opinion??

Ames,

SO, how ..in YOUR opinion...did the urine end up on the panties and the long johns, but not on the blanket?

Simply because there was a time lapse between her postmortem release and JonBenet being wrapped in the blankets.

Which suggests JonBenet was left lying somewhere else prior to being taken down to the basement.

When someone broke the paintbrush handle and constructed the garrote, then placed it around her neck etc, all of this means JonBenet's body would have to be handled in some manner, particularly if also at this point the birefringement material is inserted inside JonBenet, so the blankets, if they were around her at this point would be unwrapped to to allow access, thus exposing the urine-stained/soaked longjohns and size-12's, even the smell would indicate the latter staining, again this is all simply ignored by the stager, who according to some is attempting to hide signs of a toileting incident, yet leaves the originating cause lying upstairs on the bathroom floor?

It does not add up for me.


.

 

[UKGuy]

[BJonBenet most likely was wearing her red turtleneck and the pair of playpants because she was going to get on a plane early next morning. ]My belief is that Patsy hit JonBenet over the head in JonBenet's bathroom. Patsy had discovered that JonBenet soiled herself and her size 6 panties were also soiled. She had JonBenet remove her clothes so that she could give her a quick bath. JonBenet was not about to get in the tub and a struggle ensued whereas Patsy lost it..[/B]

This is but one of two scenarios I play around with.

Toltec,
Who dressed JonBenet for the plane flight? Why was she not bathed first and dressed last?

Why did Patsy leave the incriminating evidence lying in full view on the bathroom floor?


.

 

[JMO8778]

The soiled pants found on the floor inside out belonged to JonBenet. I would assume those are the pants she wore during the day before being told to dress for the trip to the Whites.

According to LHP Patsy and the kids would leave their clothes where they took them off. So JonBenet was getting undressed in her bathroom and like all six-year-olds would place their hand on the bathroom counter and take their pants off using their feet, hence the pants being inside out. I would assume JonBenet, if left to her own devices would put on her black velvet pants without changing her panties. She wears soiled panties to the Whites.

At this point, JonBenet comes out of her bathroom and there is Mommy holding the red turtleneck. She puts it on JonBenet, A defiant JonBenet goes into her bathroom, removes the red turtleneck, balls it up and throws it on the counter. She then proceeds to put her white Gap top and black vest on.

My belief is that Patsy did not know JonBenet had soiled her panties until she took her to the toilet the night of her murder.

and perhaps that was the catalyst that started it all...

 

[JMO8778]

It's possible the oversized underwear were meant to cover up pull-ups, but according to both Patsy and LHP, JonBenet was only dressed in pull-ups for bed, and there would be no point in covering up a pull-up with cotton unders if all she's doing is sleeping. You know? There's no reason to wear both when she's just going to be in bed - the sheets don't care. Again, according to Patsy and LHP (because imo Patsy alone is not credible), JB didn't use the pull-ups every night anyway, but they were being packed for use on the Disney cruise.

And I still think they'd've been too big to just be a pretty cover over a pull-up - they bagged down to her knees. Not just past her crotch a little, but down to her knees.

Even if they'd been purchased to cover pull-ups, the night JB was killed was the first night she ever wore a pair, and they weren't in her drawers with all of her other pairs of underwear. So who got them to put on her, and where was the rest of the package both before and after that one pair was put on her?

seems they were in one of the 1/2 wrapped packages and Patsy lied bc she didn't want anyone to know that...so she said they were for someone else,but JB wanted them,so she kept them aside for her till she got older.