The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Agatha_C]

What I think is unusual, is the Dr. Seuss book, being inside a suitcase, which belonged to a college aged male. This is the part, the one thing that makes this strange. That and the fact that if it was there for laundering, that it was in a suitcase in the 'train room'.

So, was someone trying to implicate JAR? Covering up evidence of behaviors involving JAR and JonBenet, or just some weird coincidence?

This family is so bizarre, I don't think you can rule anything, or possibly any family member out.

Hey Sunnie,

I truly believe it to be a weird coincidence. Many of us could find such weird things in our own attics and basements.

We had an old sea bag of in our attic, full of crap my family couldnt seem to throw out, as if these things created the nexus of life in our home. I'm not kidding, I had no idea what Hubby and kids had stashed in there. I was forced to confront this bag when we turned the attic into another room. I was certain that I, was about to find out what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Needless to say, Mr Hoffa was not in the bag, just a bunch of crap that found its way to the trash, as well as loads of stuff that I found in old book bags and suitcases. Stuff that made no sense. Unless.... You picture your kids cleaning their rooms and stuffing everything into something e.g... Drawers, bags, suitcases, and book bags/sacks to name a few (LOL).

I think it just a weird coincidence that those things were in the suitcase. One that like so many others helped to add to the confusion and the shadow of doubt. Maybe coincidence isnt the right word. Maybe luck would be a better word to use.

 

[UKGuy]

What I think is unusual, is the Dr. Seuss book, being inside a suitcase, which belonged to a college aged male. This is the part, the one thing that makes this strange. That and the fact that if it was there for laundering, that it was in a suitcase in the 'train room'.

So, was someone trying to implicate JAR? Covering up evidence of behaviors involving JAR and JonBenet, or just some weird coincidence?

This family is so bizarre, I don't think you can rule anything, or possibly any family member out.

SunnieRN,

The Dr. Seuss book may simply be circumstantial evidence. Something that was swept up into the suitcase whenever the room was cleaned up.

But, and there is always a but, was a prior crime scene being sanitized, did something take place in that room that required everything that suggested recent use meant it had to be remooved to the basement?

In this case, unlike some others, I always have this feeling that something else has been covered up?


.

 

[SunnieRN]

That's the thing about this case. Too many things were left unsaid, too many questions were left unasked, or unanswered and too much evidence was not collected, or allowed to grow legs and walk away.

 

[Jayelles]

Goodness, this is an awesome continuation of my "experiment"! Well done to the OP.

A fellow forum poster from the US came to visit me last summer and she was interested to see the Bloomies. She remarked that they looked even huger in reality than in the photos. I gave her a pair as a souvenir My Tootsie is now 11 and the "big Bloomies" would still be miles too big for her. I suspect that by the time she grows into them, she wouldn't want to wear "days of the week" underwear so a missing dayfrom the collection is of little consequence.

PS - please consider signing the petition for an independent review into the McCann case. Link is given below.

 

[cynic]

Goodness, this is an awesome continuation of my "experiment"! Well done to the OP.

A fellow forum poster from the US came to visit me last summer and she was interested to see the Bloomies. She remarked that they looked even huger in reality than in the photos. I gave her a pair as a souvenir My Tootsie is now 11 and the "big Bloomies" would still be miles too big for her. I suspect that by the time she grows into them, she wouldn't want to wear "days of the week" underwear so a missing dayfrom the collection is of little consequence.

PS - please consider signing the petition for an independent review into the McCann case. Link is given below.

Thank you for your comments and especially for your past efforts over at FFJ in illustrating exactly how significant the size differential is.
Your work certainly inspired this thread.

 

[madeleine]

That's the thing about this case. Too many things were left unsaid, too many questions were left unasked, or unanswered and too much evidence was not collected, or allowed to grow legs and walk away.

But to me all this Bloomies talk made it more clearer.
I was confused just like all the experts and talking heads who had/have a theory on this case.
I always asked myself how can so many people have so different theories?Because there are too many elements which are contradicting and don't fit.

But something became very clear to me.

What was important for the killer/killers?

1.to make it look like it was something else (RN).so it wasn't kidnapping

2.he/she/they took the time to clean and redress the body.that makes me think it was all about her injuries down there and not about the head bash or strangulation.this is what needed to be covered up.

3.then you have a panel of doctors who claim she suffered from chronic abuse.

4.if you start eliminating people who could have done this the list gets pretty short.and if you add the ones who obviously lied in this case it gets even shorter.



maybe it's not that complicated after all.

 

[joeskidbeck]

But to me all this Bloomies talk made it more clearer.
I was confused just like all the experts and talking heads who had/have a theory on this case.
I always asked myself how can so many people have so different theories?Because there are too many elements which are contradicting and don't fit.

But something became very clear to me.

What was important for the killer/killers?

1.to make it look like it was something else (RN).so it wasn't kidnapping

2.he/she/they took the time to clean and redress the body.that makes me think it was all about her injuries down there and not about the head bash or strangulation.this is what needed to be covered up.

3.then you have a panel of doctors who claim she suffered from chronic abuse.

4.if you start eliminating people who could have done this the list gets pretty short.and if you add the ones who obviously lied in this case it gets even shorter.



maybe it's not that complicated after all.

Thank you, madeleine. If the Boulder DA's office had as much common sense as this post, someone would be in prison for Jonbenet's death (or the cover-up). I believe it is really that simple.

 

[SunnieRN]

Madeline, all that had to be done, is for BPD to QUESTION the words and actions of the R's, that did not add up, or make sense. That is what was made by my statement as it was in relation to comments made and disproven in this thread, as well as others.

The fact that the R's were trated as 'victims', despite the need to truly rule them our as participating in the crime, led to the fiasco of an unsolved case in 2011.

That, or there is a solution to the puzzle. A solution that can not be known due to CO law at the time. If that IS the case, SHAME on Boulder, for wasting taxpayer dollars to 'attempt' solving an unprosecutable crime.

 

[Agatha_C]

Madeline, all that had to be done, is for BPD to QUESTION the words and actions of the R's, that did not add up, or make sense. That is what was made by my statement as it was in relation to comments made and disproven in this thread, as well as others.

The fact that the R's were trated as 'victims', despite the need to truly rule them our as participating in the crime, led to the fiasco of an unsolved case in 2011.

That, or there is a solution to the puzzle. A solution that can not be known due to CO law at the time. If that IS the case, SHAME on Boulder, for wasting taxpayer dollars to 'attempt' solving an unprosecutable crime.

This case can never go to trial because those in high places cannot have it be known just how deep and far reaching the cover up went. Its the very reason this case is not in the cold case files, as then it would be public record and anyone could look at them. This will never be allowed to happen or at least it wont in our lifetime.

You are so right Sunnie, Shame on you Boulder!!!!!!!!

 

[DeeDee249]

Thank you, madeleine. If the Boulder DA's office had as much common sense as this post, someone would be in prison for Jonbenet's death (or the cover-up). I believe it is really that simple.

See- that's the thing. Even if, under Colorado law the crime isn't prosecutable, the cover up should be. I don't believe BR played a part in the cover up; that was Patsy and JR (or someone at their behest).

 

[SunnieRN]

See- that's the thing. Even if, under Colorado law the crime isn't prosecutable, the cover up should be. I don't believe BR played a part in the cover up; that was Patsy and JR (or someone at their behest).

Exactly DeeDee. But, sheesh, isn't there always a but... If BPD prosecuted the R's for the cover up of JonBenets murder, would that have been the same as admitting Burkes guilt? Legally, could that even have been done?

I am getting a headache again, just thinking about the ramifications!

 

[Agatha_C]

Exactly DeeDee. But, sheesh, isn't there always a but... If BPD prosecuted the R's for the cover up of JonBenets murder, would that have been the same as admitting Burkes guilt? Legally, could that even have been done?

I am getting a headache again, just thinking about the ramifications!

Sunnie,

The way that I'm understanding it, is the one has nothing to do with the other. Meaning the child couldnt be tried for the crime, but the parents could be tried for Aggravated Assault by Failure to Protect, along with a slew of other charges e,g obstruction, tampering with a crime scene and so on. I also wonder, if BR hit her on the head, but wasnt the one to strangle her to death, would the strangler be the real killer or an accomplice? If it was determined that the strangulation was at the hands of one of the parents, wouldnt that make them the killer?

 

[DeeDee249]

Sunnie,

The way that I'm understanding it, is the one has nothing to do with the other. Meaning the child couldnt be tried for the crime, but the parents could be tried for Aggravated Assault by Failure to Protect, along with a slew of other charges e,g obstruction, tampering with a crime scene and so on. I also wonder, if BR hit her on the head, but wasnt the one to strangle her to death, would the strangler be the real killer or an accomplice? If it was determined that the strangulation was at the hands of one of the parents, wouldnt that make them the killer?

I suppose BR being the killer, even if unsaid, would be inferred or deduced if the ONLY charges the parents faced was tampering with evidence or failure to protect. But it STILL wouldn't actually be stated that BR was involved.
There was SO much to sort out with these kooks that it was probably a relief to many to walk away and not take this circus on the road.

 

[UKGuy]

Sunnie,

The way that I'm understanding it, is the one has nothing to do with the other. Meaning the child couldnt be tried for the crime, but the parents could be tried for Aggravated Assault by Failure to Protect, along with a slew of other charges e,g obstruction, tampering with a crime scene and so on. I also wonder, if BR hit her on the head, but wasnt the one to strangle her to death, would the strangler be the real killer or an accomplice? If it was determined that the strangulation was at the hands of one of the parents, wouldnt that make them the killer?

Agatha_C,
Only if you could determine what came first the head blow or the asphyxiation? The autopsy report details death was as a result of both factors.

The curiosity about the garrote is that it was applied with minimal force since JonBenet's hyoid bone was left intact and the surrounding tissue had little if any cellular damage.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Agatha_C,
Only if you could determine what came first the head blow or the asphyxiation? The autopsy report details death was as a result of both factors.

The curiosity about the garrote is that it was applied with minimal force since JonBenet's hyoid bone was left intact and the surrounding tissue had little if any cellular damage.


.

Sadly, the exact cause of death can never be determined as to which came first. In children, the hyoid bone does not always break- although the coroner did determine the strangulation was a cause of death, and presumably would have killed her even if there had been no head bash- and vice versa- the head bash alone would have killed her.
Whoever applied the garrote would be (one of) the killers, even if they thought she was already dead, and even if someone else was guilty of the head bash, because that act was responsible for contributing to her death. It doesn't make a difference that the strangler may have thought the victim was already dead.

 

[UKGuy]

Sadly, the exact cause of death can never be determined as to which came first. In children, the hyoid bone does not always break- although the coroner did determine the strangulation was a cause of death, and presumably would have killed her even if there had been no head bash- and vice versa- the head bash alone would have killed her.
Whoever applied the garrote would be (one of) the killers, even if they thought she was already dead, and even if someone else was guilty of the head bash, because that act was responsible for contributing to her death. It doesn't make a difference that the strangler may have thought the victim was already dead.

DeeDee249,

In children, the hyoid bone does not always break

Sure but a damaged hyoid bone is generally the norm in strangulation cases, and along with the absence of surrounding cellular trauma, this suggests, lets say the garrote is more show than substance?

Coroner Meyer in his Autopsy Report stated:

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma.

I interpret that as an absence of oxygen due to strangulation and associated with this cause is a contributory factor due to craniocerebral trauma.

Unless Coroner Meyer was being deliberately cryptic or opaque then I assume JonBenet was strangled then bashed on the head. And that its the latter that contributes towards her final death by asphyxiation.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Since I'm on the Bloomingdales thread, does anyone think Patsy would deliberately lie about the size-12's, knowing full well that they cannot be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, since they were removed from the house?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Sure but a damaged hyoid bone is generally the norm in strangulation cases, and along with the absence of surrounding cellular trauma, this suggests, lets say the garrote is more show than substance?

Coroner Meyer in his Autopsy Report stated:


I interpret that as an absence of oxygen due to strangulation and associated with this cause is a contributory factor due to craniocerebral trauma.

Unless Coroner Meyer was being deliberately cryptic or opaque then I assume JonBenet was strangled then bashed on the head. And that its the latter that contributes towards her final death by asphyxiation.

.

I disagree. The garrote was dug deep enough into her neck to make a deep red ligature furrow (made while she was alive). The compression of the vagus nerve in the neck would be enough to cause cardiac arrest, without the ligature being pulled hard enough to break the hyoid, which is more flexible in children. Either COD was enough to kill her independently of the other.
And I think the head bash came first.

 

[DeeDee249]

Since I'm on the Bloomingdales thread, does anyone think Patsy would deliberately lie about the size-12's, knowing full well that they cannot be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, since they were removed from the house?



.

I think she lied about the Bloomies panties, and didn't really care that it meant LE would never find them. I think she thought she'd come up with some excuse about it (like "Oh, HERE they are- packed up in a moving crate" YEARS later) and frankly, the way the interviews were going, LE was not too good about following up on suspicious things.

 

[UKGuy]

I think she lied about the Bloomies panties, and didn't really care that it meant LE would never find them. I think she thought she'd come up with some excuse about it (like "Oh, HERE they are- packed up in a moving crate" YEARS later) and frankly, the way the interviews were going, LE was not too good about following up on suspicious things.

DeeDee249,

Thanks, well I was thinking along the lines, would Patsy not be concerned about what she said e.g. did she just lie off the cuff, something to say, a defense , any defense?

I reckon knowing that Patsy lies in ignorance has implications for other RDI theories.

.