The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Dynamic88]

It is possible that the blood got there via seepage after she was cleaned up.

I think this is possible too, as we don't know the position of the body during the night.

But the fact that wiped blood was found on her groin, it would suggest that her original blood stained panties would have been removed, then replaced with fresh size 12s that would stain due to seeping.

Sounds reasonable to me.

But if you recall, the coroner stated that there was no corresponding stains on her body. Blood simply doesn't leap from her inner vagina to the panties. So logic dictates she was wearing the size 12s, was wiped down, and they were pulled back up.

Blood didn't have to be in her inner vagina, it may already have seeped outward. We are talking about really small blood stains here. I don't see why she had to be wearing size 12s before the assault, if that's what you are saying. It's possible, but imo not logically dictated. Size 12s were put on her after she was wiped.

To me this shows that the perp was not hiding blood, but was worried that tdna, sweat, saliva or semen may be in that region and they wanted it gone.

Hmmm. Well tdna was unkown in '96. There may well have been semen that needed to be wiped away, but the chemical staining tests that would have been done at autopsy didn't come up with semen. Flourescent lighting at autopsy suggested to the police the possibility of semen, but closer examination revealed that it was just blood. (If I have my facts straight) Since there is a relatively large area that was wiped, and the remaining stain indicates it was blood, I have to conclude that the perp was trying to clean up blood.

And although I think it is unlikely, there is always the possibility that someone left the house and wiped a stain from a public men's room, then purposely transferred it to JBs groin. Possibly she was wiped with DNA, not wiped clean?

Well that would have to be John, and if he risked leaving the house why not dump the body at the same time ? I really can't see him leaving the house going to a men's room then coming back.

Interesting that a perp could wipe DNA on, rather than off.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[DeeDee249]

When a fluoroscope hits, it shows only the presence of the proteins found in body fluids like urine, semen and blood. When JB was scoped, they did not know what the substance was. Her pelvic area and thighs were swabbed and the substance was found to be blood- JB's own blood. No one went to a public restroom and "got a sample" of anything.
Don't confuse THIS finding with the "unknown male DNA" found under a blood stain in her panties. There are a lot of misconceptions about this one. First- the ONLY blood found on JB, IN JB and in the panties was her own. There was NO other blood found, male or otherwise. The male DNA was not actually 'MIXED WITH" JB's own. It was simply found on an area of her panties where small drops of blood had seeped onto the crotch. This has never been linked to a donor, and until that happened (that is until we have a NAME to put on it, we cannot link it to the crime for certain. The whole family attended a party at which many males were present. Some of these were children and as far as I know, NONE have been tested for a match. This does not mean any of those kids were suspects, it simply means that they touched surfaces that JB and her family had also touched. This included doorknobs, bathroom fixtures, eating utensils, and toys that the kids played with. The panty DNA may or may not have anything to do with the crime, but it certainly does NOT rule out anyone in the family. The other DNA on her clothes was TOUCH DNA and that means skin cells. Shake someone's hand or touch something they touched and you will also have their TDNA on you and vice versa. The likelihood of an intruder leaving their DNA ONLY there in an entire crime scene is preposterous. And to be clear on one more matter that is often misstated- there was NO usable DNA under JB's fingernails- it was determined to be degraded - NO slices of her or anyone else's skin (that would indicate she scratched someone) and the coroner ADMITTED he did not follow proper procedure and use a sterile pair of clippers for each finger. Not only that, in an inexcusable breach of proper procedure, he didn't even clean the ONE pair of clippers between autopsies so anything found under her nails could have come from another dead body at the morgue. It would have been thrown out of court or never been admitted had this case gone to trial. One other thing- there were NO scratches found on JB's throat. The marks that look like scratches are actually petechial hemorrhages and common in strangulation victims. Most experts agree (as does Kolar and other LE) that the head bash came first. If you have seen the autopsy photo of her skull (and everyone offering an opinion on her autopsy should have) you will understand that she had to have been rendered instantly unconscious. A coma likely followed soon after. NO ONE is awake after their skull is split in half with a piece of the skull knocked into the brain cavity. NO ONE. She did not struggle or scratch herself trying to remove the ligature. That ligature was circumferential (even) and did not indicate any movement on the part of the person being strangled.

 

[UKGuy]

When a fluoroscope hits, it shows only the presence of the proteins found in body fluids like urine, semen and blood. When JB was scoped, they did not know what the substance was. Her pelvic area and thighs were swabbed and the substance was found to be blood- JB's own blood. No one went to a public restroom and "got a sample" of anything.
Don't confuse THIS finding with the "unknown male DNA" found under a blood stain in her panties. There are a lot of misconceptions about this one. First- the ONLY blood found on JB, IN JB and in the panties was her own. There was NO other blood found, male or otherwise. The male DNA was not actually 'MIXED WITH" JB's own. It was simply found on an area of her panties where small drops of blood had seeped onto the crotch. This has never been linked to a donor, and until that happened (that is until we have a NAME to put on it, we cannot link it to the crime for certain. The whole family attended a party at which many males were present. Some of these were children and as far as I know, NONE have been tested for a match. This does not mean any of those kids were suspects, it simply means that they touched surfaces that JB and her family had also touched. This included doorknobs, bathroom fixtures, eating utensils, and toys that the kids played with. The panty DNA may or may not have anything to do with the crime, but it certainly does NOT rule out anyone in the family. The other DNA on her clothes was TOUCH DNA and that means skin cells. Shake someone's hand or touch something they touched and you will also have their TDNA on you and vice versa. The likelihood of an intruder leaving their DNA ONLY there in an entire crime scene is preposterous. And to be clear on one more matter that is often misstated- there was NO usable DNA under JB's fingernails- it was determined to be degraded - NO slices of her or anyone else's skin (that would indicate she scratched someone) and the coroner ADMITTED he did not follow proper procedure and use a sterile pair of clippers for each finger. Not only that, in an inexcusable breach of proper procedure, he didn't even clean the ONE pair of clippers between autopsies so anything found under her nails could have come from another dead body at the morgue. It would have been thrown out of court or never been admitted had this case gone to trial. One other thing- there were NO scratches found on JB's throat. The marks that look like scratches are actually petechial hemorrhages and common in strangulation victims. Most experts agree (as does Kolar and other LE) that the head bash came first. If you have seen the autopsy photo of her skull (and everyone offering an opinion on her autopsy should have) you will understand that she had to have been rendered instantly unconscious. A coma likely followed soon after. NO ONE is awake after their skull is split in half with a piece of the skull knocked into the brain cavity. NO ONE. She did not struggle or scratch herself trying to remove the ligature. That ligature was circumferential (even) and did not indicate any movement on the part of the person being strangled.

DeeDee249,

One other thing- there were NO scratches found on JB's throat. The marks that look like scratches are actually petechial hemorrhages and common in strangulation victims.

I disagree with you here, as does James Kolar.

Most experts agree (as does Kolar and other LE) that the head bash came first.

I disagree with you here, as does James Kolar, read his verbatim remarks below and on the reddit website.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10352-James-Kolar-s-Q-amp-A-AMA-March-28-2015

I have had a number of discussions with local, national and international media personnel over the course of my involvement in the case, and it is hard to say exactly how the coverage of this murder might have been covered had it not been for the CNN interview initiated by the parents. That national exposure, and the subsequent play of the child pageant films, generated what has been called the ‘perfect storm’ of the media frenzy.

With regard to a different ending? The history of the DA’s relationship with the defense bar had too much history and I don’t think anything would have changed in how they interacted with the BPD in their investigation of the case.

Det. Smit didn’t appear to take into consideration the forensic opinions rendered about the sequencing of injuries. Based upon my review of those theories, it is my belief that the fingernail marks on JBR’s throat were created when the collar of her shirt was pulled tight around her neck, at the same time that the triangular shaped bruise was formed on the front her neck. Next came the blow to her head that rendered her unconscious.

The garrote could not have been responsible for the triangular bruising, and was applied some period of time later, when JBR was unconscious and unable to struggle against the placement of the cord.

I don’t believe the strangulation with the cord was a part of staging, and its use constituted an underlying part of the motivation involved in the assault on JBR. A more complete analysis of the sequencing of the injuries was offered in Chapter 6 of the book.

If you dissect John Ramseys sequencing of events, the intruder(s) remained in the home far beyond the 30 minutes bracketing the estimated time of JBR’s death.

I used to think the ligature asphyxiation was part of the staging, Kolar suggests otherwise which makes his theory appear shocking, but I'm assuming he knows something we do not regarding the sociopathic behaviour of the perpetrator, he implies, with his Bundy analogy, that JonBenet's killer was engaged in escalating acts of violence, possibly due to curiosity!

James Kolar's reply on his reddit AMA

I can't imagine a 9-yr old being sexually, intellictually, or physically advanced enough to brutally strangle his sister with a wire and garrotte, even if he had been molesting her in some way.

I absolutely think this is the key to that question. Think of Ted Bundy. He just couldn't find fulfillment after a while in regular /sex acts so he became violent. I think we're thinking too much of how we, as adults, know that things like this can be used in sexual violence and not enough of how maybe a sick child would simply be curious.

Just my 2 cents on that one.

Kolar's sequence of events mirrors that of my own, i.e. Manual Strangulation, Head Blow, Ligature Asphyxiation, I thought the latter was staging, Kolar says it was part and parcel of JonBenet's homicide.

.

 

[questfortrue]

DeeDee249,
I disagree with you here, as does James Kolar.

I disagree with you here, as does James Kolar, read his verbatim remarks below and on the reddit website.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?10352-James-Kolar-s-Q-amp-A-AMA-March-28-2015

I used to think the ligature asphyxiation was part of the staging, Kolar suggests otherwise which makes his theory appear shocking, but I'm assuming he knows something we do not regarding the sociopathic behaviour of the perpetrator, he implies, with his Bundy analogy, that JonBenet's killer was engaged in escalating acts of violence, possibly due to curiosity!

James Kolar's reply on his reddit AMA


Kolar's sequence of events mirrors that of my own, i.e. Manual Strangulation, Head Blow, Ligature Asphyxiation, I thought the latter was staging, Kolar says it was part and parcel of JonBenet's homicide.

.

The theory you attribute to Kolar was derived from Spitz’s sequence of injuries. While Spitz may be correct, some of us have looked at the photos of strangulation victims and remain unconvinced that Spitz’s theory of the injuries is accurate, specifically pertaining to the large abrasion on the left of her neck which appears in many photos of strangulation victims. Also, the abrasions referenced in the autopsy seem to point to the one large triangular abrasion and a small abrasion on the right side of the chin. Meyers does not detail any particular marks as abrasions other than those. OTOH, he does go into detail in listing the location of the petechial hemorrhages.

As far as what Kolar intended in his reddit, possibly he was constrained by legal concerns in communicating his specific theory that perhaps BR was responsible for it all. IDK. (Kolar did sidestep one question which suggested that two people might be responsible for the death of JB.) However, I’ll throw out my own take on this. Kolar seems to want folks to at least consider that this could have been all done by one person, and we are led to consider BR. I believe he was guiding us to look at this from the standpoint of a sick child. Yes, Kolar saw much more than any of us, but here is what he added as clarification: I don't know if I think Burke is responsible, but similar murders by kids his age mean I can't rule him out (even though I also agree that the use of a garrote throws me). Really unfortunate.

There was talk at one time after the year 2000 interviews that another GJ might be called. Kolar thought a subpoena of BR's medical records or the establishment of another GJ could be instrumental in solving the case. Well, we all know what came of those ideas. Between 2001 to 2009 it was the era of the 'reign' of ML. (Living on the other side of the pond, I'm guessing you know about 'reigns'. )

 

[questfortrue]

Returning to the subject of this thread and some other thoughts about these Bloomies –

They stuck like crazy to the story that JB was “zonked” when she was carried to bed, but then there’s BR’s explanation of JB walking upstairs, pineapple and the very odd tale of the large size Bloomies. . .

DeeDee249’s mention of the kids at the party and the possibility of dna transfer, reminded me of some posts from the past on sister site ffj.

As reference, keep in mind that the Rs had an explanation of JB being placed (while asleep) in her bed and redressed for bedtime. Some posters of the past (koldkase and Jayelles, iirc) have considered that the Wednesday panties were selected from the Bloomies package, in the event that someone saw Wednesday panties on JB, if they’d assisted her in the bathroom at the Whites. The Rs’ story was that Patsy removed her party pants and placed the leggings on her. She would obviously have worn panties underneath her party pants. (Set aside for the time being Patsy’s vague story regarding how JB got dressed for the party and whether JB changed her own underwear.) The story Patsy tells is that those brand new panties were in JonBenet’s drawer, placed there because JonBenet wanted them, and inferring she must have worn them to the party. How they were able to remove the party pants and have those big Bloomies stay up is another topic. But at least they have remained consistent to their story.

So next pull on the thread of the story Patsy provides regarding giving JonBenet the huge Bloomies. Did she buy JonBenet a package of those in her size? Patsy can’t exactly remember whether she did or not. Well, why doesn’t she just say “no” and that’s why JB wanted them, because she didn’t have her own. Well Patsy was on a mother/daughter trip shopping with other mothers, and one of them might remember that Patsy bought two Bloomies packages. So Patsy can’t outright lie here. It’s another case for the “I don’t remember” response. I myself would remember buying a gift for a niece and a similar product for my daughter. OK, back to the Bloomies package.

LE didn’t find any trace of the 12-14 size Bloomies opened and remaining in JonBenet’s drawers. Nor did they find the original package with only the Wednesday panties removed. One could perhaps say that Patsy put the rest of the Bloomies package away somewhere. But then that action contradicts her story that JonBenet wanted them and so she placed them in her drawers, where she could help herself. Why would she take them away from JB then? Doesn’t seem like the action of a loving mother giving in to her daughter’s wish to have those Bloomies. (Those Bloomies were not there on the 27th, before Aunt P stormed the home.) And the intact Bloomies package with only the Wednesday panties removed were sent back to BPD from Georgia five years later. (Of course, we don’t know if this was a package they bought later to show they were cooperating.) By the way, JB did have a set of days of the week underwear in her correct size. LE asked Patsy about that, and she answered yes, though she didn’t volunteer whether they also were Bloomies.

What about this whole tale doesn’t scream liar, liar, pants on fire? - jmo

A photo of the Bloomies packaging from ACR, courtesy of poster Jayelles, year 2000. The end of the package was fastened with a plastic security ring, to make sure the package stayed closed and undisturbed until purchased and opened. The ring would have perhaps been cut with a knife.

 

[UKGuy]

The theory you attribute to Kolar was derived from Spitz’s sequence of injuries. While Spitz may be correct, some of us have looked at the photos of strangulation victims and remain unconvinced that Spitz’s theory of the injuries is accurate, specifically pertaining to the large abrasion on the left of her neck which appears in many photos of strangulation victims. Also, the abrasions referenced in the autopsy seem to point to the one large triangular abrasion and a small abrasion on the right side of the chin. Meyers does not detail any particular marks as abrasions other than those. OTOH, he does go into detail in listing the location of the petechial hemorrhages.

As far as what Kolar intended in his reddit, possibly he was constrained by legal concerns in communicating his specific theory that perhaps BR was responsible for it all. IDK. (Kolar did sidestep one question which suggested that two people might be responsible for the death of JB.) However, I’ll throw out my own take on this. Kolar seems to want folks to at least consider that this could have been all done by one person, and we are led to consider BR. I believe he was guiding us to look at this from the standpoint of a sick child. Yes, Kolar saw much more than any of us, but here is what he added as clarification: I don't know if I think Burke is responsible, but similar murders by kids his age mean I can't rule him out (even though I also agree that the use of a garrote throws me). Really unfortunate.

There was talk at one time after the year 2000 interviews that another GJ might be called. Kolar thought a subpoena of BR's medical records or the establishment of another GJ could be instrumental in solving the case. Well, we all know what came of those ideas. Between 2001 to 2009 it was the era of the 'reign' of ML. (Living on the other side of the pond, I'm guessing you know about 'reigns'. )

questfortrue,

How you interpret the forensic evidence is a matter for you. Yet Kolar does suscribe to the sequence of events I posted.

I don't know if I think Burke is responsible, but similar murders by kids his age mean I can't rule him out (even though I also agree that the use of a garrote throws me). Really unfortunate.

Its not the use of a garrote that throws me its that Kolar thinks the sequence of steps, i.e. Sexual Assault, Manual Strangulation, Head Injury, Ligature Asphyxiation, Staging, not necessarily in that order, were enacted by one sociopathic person intentionally, presumably with premeditation!

Also that person is still at liberty and might decide to re-experience the homicide?

I'm alive to the possibility that Kolar's theory might be untestable, but is consistent within the current evidentiary framework, and that the case might be JDI.





.

 

[UKGuy]

questfortrue,

Patsy cannot remember much about JonBenet's underwear, most likely because she never knew about the size-12's, so cannot agree to seeing JonBenet dressing in underwear prior to the White's Party, or what underwear she was wearing when she redressed JonBenet in the long-johns, a story I think is fabricated.

Contrast that with Patsy knowing she purchased the size-12's but forgets if she purchased a size-6 set for JonBenet, I'm guessing the reason for this question is that the investigators know there is a missing pair of size-6 Wednesday day of the week Bloomingdales, which originated from a set also purchased by Patsy.

.

 

[Dynamic88]

Returning to the subject of this thread and some other thoughts about these Bloomies –

They stuck like crazy to the story that JB was “zonked” when she was carried to bed, but then there’s BR’s explanation of JB walking upstairs, pineapple and the very odd tale of the large size Bloomies. . .

DeeDee249’s mention of the kids at the party and the possibility of dna transfer, reminded me of some posts from the past on sister site ffj.

As reference, keep in mind that the Rs had an explanation of JB being placed (while asleep) in her bed and redressed for bedtime. Some posters of the past (koldkase and Jayelles, iirc) have considered that the Wednesday panties were selected from the Bloomies package, in the event that someone saw Wednesday panties on JB, if they’d assisted her in the bathroom at the Whites. The Rs’ story was that Patsy removed her party pants and placed the leggings on her. She would obviously have worn panties underneath her party pants. (Set aside for the time being Patsy’s vague story regarding how JB got dressed for the party and whether JB changed her own underwear.) The story Patsy tells is that those brand new panties were in JonBenet’s drawer, placed there because JonBenet wanted them, and inferring she must have worn them to the party. How they were able to remove the party pants and have those big Bloomies stay up is another topic. But at least they have remained consistent to their story.

So next pull on the thread of the story Patsy provides regarding giving JonBenet the huge Bloomies. Did she buy JonBenet a package of those in her size? Patsy can’t exactly remember whether she did or not. Well, why doesn’t she just say “no” and that’s why JB wanted them, because she didn’t have her own. Well Patsy was on a mother/daughter trip shopping with other mothers, and one of them might remember that Patsy bought two Bloomies packages. So Patsy can’t outright lie here. It’s another case for the “I don’t remember” response. I myself would remember buying a gift for a niece and a similar product for my daughter. OK, back to the Bloomies package.

LE didn’t find any trace of the 12-14 size Bloomies opened and remaining in JonBenet’s drawers. Nor did they find the original package with only the Wednesday panties removed. One could perhaps say that Patsy put the rest of the Bloomies package away somewhere. But then that action contradicts her story that JonBenet wanted them and so she placed them in her drawers, where she could help herself. Why would she take them away from JB then? Doesn’t seem like the action of a loving mother giving in to her daughter’s wish to have those Bloomies. (Those Bloomies were not there on the 27th, before Aunt P stormed the home.) And the intact Bloomies package with only the Wednesday panties removed were sent back to BPD from Georgia five years later. (Of course, we don’t know if this was a package they bought later to show they were cooperating.) By the way, JB did have a set of days of the week underwear in her correct size. LE asked Patsy about that, and she answered yes, though she didn’t volunteer whether they also were Bloomies.

What about this whole tale doesn’t scream liar, liar, pants on fire? - jmo

A photo of the Bloomies packaging from ACR, courtesy of poster Jayelles, year 2000. The end of the package was fastened with a plastic security ring, to make sure the package stayed closed and undisturbed until purchased and opened. The ring would have perhaps been cut with a knife.

It would have been very easy to claim that JBR had tinkled in her panties and they were therefore replaced when she was dressed for sleep. There would be no reason that she needed to be put to bed in underwear consistent with what she wore to the party.

The oversized bloomies were not in the drawer. So, either Patsy is lying, or John (or BR for BDI fans) moved the package, and then the police missed the package when they searched the house. My money is on Patsy lying.

 

[Dynamic88]

questfortrue,

Patsy cannot remember much about JonBenet's underwear, most likely because she never knew about the size-12's, so cannot agree to seeing JonBenet dressing in underwear prior to the White's Party, or what underwear she was wearing when she redressed JonBenet in the long-johns, a story I think is fabricated.

Contrast that with Patsy knowing she purchased the size-12's but forgets if she purchased a size-6 set for JonBenet, I'm guessing the reason for this question is that the investigators know there is a missing pair of size-6 Wednesday day of the week Bloomingdales, which originated from a set also purchased by Patsy.

.

If I'm following you, you are saying the police did find a package of size 12s somewhere in the house?

 

[UKGuy]

If I'm following you, you are saying the police did find a package of size 12s somewhere in the house?

Dynamic88,
No! They found size-6 underwear as stated to Patsy in her interview, what I'm attempting to illustrate is PR's consistency on the underwear topic, she forgets or was not present when it matters about the size-6 underwear except when someone is required for the size-12 purchase, get it?

Patsy was already pinned down in the interview when she agreed that the intruder never brought the size-12 underwear into the house as Patsy agreed she purchased it.

When the investigators ask Patsy if she purchased a size-6 pack of Bloomingdale underwear, at the same time as the size-12 pack of underwear, she forgets, do you see the pattern in Patsy's response, e.g. size-12 remember, size-6 forgets.


Investigators normally do not ask irrelevant questions, so when Patsy is asked did you purchase a pack of Bloomingdales size-6 for JonBenet, then this question has to be based on prior knowledge, else why bother.

So I'm inferring there is a missing pair of Wednesday size-6 underwear and that is key to solving the JonBenet homicide!

.

 

[Annapurna]

Idea:

What if the Wednesday panties were chosen because they were in the middle of the package? Not because of the day or pattern or anything. Simply because, in haste, someone pulled one out of the middle. It just happened to match the day of the week.

 

[andreww]

It would have been very easy to claim that JBR had tinkled in her panties and they were therefore replaced when she was dressed for sleep. There would be no reason that she needed to be put to bed in underwear consistent with what she wore to the party.

The oversized bloomies were not in the drawer. So, either Patsy is lying, or John (or BR for BDI fans) moved the package, and then the police missed the package when they searched the house. My money is on Patsy lying.

The Ramsey's entire alibi is based on Jonbenet being asleep the entire time they were home. There would have been no need for a change of underwear because that would mean she was awake and would have opened them up to a whole slew of questions. Patsy had enough trouble keeping her story straight as it was. A whole new "scene" with JB was not something they needed or wanted. So she needed to be wearing the underwear she wore at the party just in case anyone else there had seen them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MURDERER_SERVANT]

The Ramsey's entire alibi is based on Jonbenet being asleep the entire time they were home. There would have been no need for a change of underwear because that would mean she was awake and would have opened them up to a whole slew of questions. Patsy had enough trouble keeping her story straight as it was. A whole new "scene" with JB was not something they needed or wanted. So she needed to be wearing the underwear she wore at the party just in case anyone else there had seen them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One also wonders JBR's hair model at the party.. She was found with two ponytails , one on top of her head secured with a a a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and the other on lower back of the head secured with a blue elastic band. If she was allegedly sleeping all the time, this must be how her hair was at the party..
Very strange that no party photos ever leaked .. Not even one.. :thinking:

 

[otg]

One also wonders JBR's hair model at the party.. She was found with two ponytails , one on top of her head secured with a a a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and the other on lower back of the head secured with a blue elastic band. If she was allegedly sleeping all the time, this must be how her hair was at the party..
Very strange that no party photos ever leaked .. Not even one.. :thinking:

At some time during the morning of December 26, after the phone call did not come in from the "kidnappers", when Arndt was the only cop left at the Ramsey house, Fleet White left for a half hour to drive home and retrieve a roll of film taken at the party the night before. He turned it over to BPD. They know how JonBenet was dressed and how her hair was fixed.

 

[dogperson]

Idea:

What if the Wednesday panties were chosen because they were in the middle of the package? Not because of the day or pattern or anything. Simply because, in haste, someone pulled one out of the middle. It just happened to match the day of the week.

That's a good point! When I was a kid in the 70s my mom and I both had sets of panties with the days of the week on them and rarely were we ever wearing them on the correct day. When getting out a clean pair we just grabbed a pair.

This is an odd thought and I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but could the person with JBR have gotten the panties out prior to the assault? For instance, to wear the panties himself? Or to use as part of the sexual assault in some way? I know nothing like semen was found on them but I was wondering, since the packages in the basement had been tampered with by BR, if perhaps the panties were already out of their package and available for whatever was taking place that night.

 

[CorallaroC]

That's a good point! When I was a kid in the 70s my mom and I both had sets of panties with the days of the week on them and rarely were we ever wearing them on the correct day. When getting out a clean pair we just grabbed a pair.

This is an odd thought and I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but could the person with JBR have gotten the panties out prior to the assault? For instance, to wear the panties himself? Or to use as part of the sexual assault in some way? I know nothing like semen was found on them but I was wondering, since the packages in the basement had been tampered with by BR, if perhaps the panties were already out of their package and available for whatever was taking place that night.

Interesting thought... the perp wearing the OVERSIZED panties..... for him/it the panties might have "fit just fine"

scary thought, but very possible...tks for sharing your idea....

 

[UKGuy]

Idea:

What if the Wednesday panties were chosen because they were in the middle of the package? Not because of the day or pattern or anything. Simply because, in haste, someone pulled one out of the middle. It just happened to match the day of the week.

Annapurna,

Maybe it was simply random choice, but you can propose that redressing JonBenet was part of a staged crime-scene, so each element might serve a role from the stagers perspective, hence the Wednesday size-12's?

.

 

[UKGuy]

That's a good point! When I was a kid in the 70s my mom and I both had sets of panties with the days of the week on them and rarely were we ever wearing them on the correct day. When getting out a clean pair we just grabbed a pair.

This is an odd thought and I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but could the person with JBR have gotten the panties out prior to the assault? For instance, to wear the panties himself? Or to use as part of the sexual assault in some way? I know nothing like semen was found on them but I was wondering, since the packages in the basement had been tampered with by BR, if perhaps the panties were already out of their package and available for whatever was taking place that night.

dogperson,
I think the answer is possibly yes. Yet if BR wore those size-12's his touch-dna will be on them, just as likely he showed them to JonBenet.

We do not know if the size-12's were opened by BR, since they may have been located elsewhere?

.

 

[UKGuy]

One also wonders JBR's hair model at the party.. She was found with two ponytails , one on top of her head secured with a a a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and the other on lower back of the head secured with a blue elastic band. If she was allegedly sleeping all the time, this must be how her hair was at the party..
Very strange that no party photos ever leaked .. Not even one.. :thinking:

MURDERER_SERVANT,
The asymmetric ponytails might suggest JonBenet was readied for bed, she may have had her pineapple snack while dressed in the pink barbie nightgown, further suggesting she might have arisen from bed, lured by a snack or whatever?

.

 

[andreww]

One also wonders JBR's hair model at the party.. She was found with two ponytails , one on top of her head secured with a a a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and the other on lower back of the head secured with a blue elastic band. If she was allegedly sleeping all the time, this must be how her hair was at the party..
Very strange that no party photos ever leaked .. Not even one.. :thinking:

Thats a good point. I doubt Patsy would have allowed Lil Miss Boulder to go out on Christmas in mismatched ponytails.

And it doesn't surprise me about photos not coming out. The Whites really haven't had anything to do with the press so that may be the reason. Or maybe nobody really too many pictures. I've been to many family Christmas' where nobody took many pictures, especially in the days before cell phones.