The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[UKGuy]

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,

Either COD was enough to kill her independently of the other.

I agree. Although Coroner Meyer appears to have one down as the main factor.


.



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

I agree. Although Coroner Meyer appears to have one down as the main factor.


.



.

I really don't see evidence of that in the Coroner's report. What makes you think he put one down as the main factor? If he felt one was more likely to have been the COD he would have worded it differently. For example, he'd have stated ONE method as the COD and stated the the second one as a "contributing factor", NOT "in association with"
Can you cite any comment by Mayer that shows he put one down as the main factor?

 

[UKGuy]

I really don't see evidence of that in the Coroner's report. What makes you think he put one down as the main factor? If he felt one was more likely to have been the COD he would have worded it differently. For example, he'd have stated ONE method as the COD and stated the the second one as a "contributing factor", NOT "in association with"
Can you cite any comment by Mayer that shows he put one down as the main factor?

DeeDee249,
Coroner Meyer in his Autopsy Report stated:

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

What makes you think he put one down as the main factor?

Because in the COD he states

Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia

e.g COD is asphyxia.

He goes on to state

by strangulation

And latterly, almost as a postscript, he adds

associated with craniocerebral trauma.

.

I interpret that as his saying JonBenet was asphyxiated by being strangled, e.g the main cause, and note he does not say concurrently or simultaneously, that is at the same time , or in concert, or in tandem no he states that the asphyxiation caused by strangulation is only associated with the craniocerebral trauma

That is the craniocerebral trauma is an associated factor but not a determining one.

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

.

 

[joeskidbeck]

DeeDee249,
Coroner Meyer in his Autopsy Report stated:



Because in the COD he states

e.g COD is asphyxia.

He goes on to state

And latterly, almost as a postscript, he adds.

I interpret that as his saying JonBenet was asphyxiated by being strangled, e.g the main cause, and note he does not say concurrently or simultaneously, that is at the same time , or in concert, or in tandem no he states that the asphyxiation caused by strangulation is only associated with the craniocerebral trauma

That is the craniocerebral trauma is an associated factor but not a determining one.

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

.

This most definately strengthens the theory that the head bash came first. If both injuries could have caused her death yet the coroner states the cause as being asphyxia, it only stands to reason the head bash came first. Let me state here that I believe the only reason for the strangulation was to cover marks where someone had grabbed JonBenet by the collar of her red turtleneck.

 

[UKGuy]

This most definately strengthens the theory that the head bash came first. If both injuries could have caused her death yet the coroner states the cause as being asphyxia, it only stands to reason the head bash came first. Let me state here that I believe the only reason for the strangulation was to cover marks where someone had grabbed JonBenet by the collar of her red turtleneck.

joeskidbeck,

Kind of looks that way. Then again it depends how you interpret what Coroner Meyer is saying.

I reckon Coroner Meyer is saying that strangulation and head bash both contributed towards asphyxia.

The conventional view is that there was a head bash followed by the ligature strangulation.

So why does his COD death not read in that sequence? This is why I asked if it appeared cryptic etc.

If you choose to read it literally it would support manual strangulation then the ligature strangulation, if that was pertitent to the asphyxia, followed by a head bash.

I accept the point about the vagus nerve etc, but without that assumption the ligature strangulation may just be staging?

What I am trying to highlight is our assumed sequence of events does not seem to match precisely what the COD states.

I guess without Meyer on the stand we will never know if he was stating that the asphyxiation by strangulation was directly attributable to the ligature?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

You're right about that, UKGuy. With no trial and no one taking the stand under oath, there is a LOT that we'll never know. And this is exactly what the DA and the RST wanted. For us NOT to know.

 

[cynic]

I'd say that Meyer’s wording was simply a safe way to phrase it.
After all, ligature strangulation is a guaranteed life ending event, less than 2 minutes or so and the victim will be clinically dead, 10 minutes, or so, and the victim will be biologically dead.
The severe head trauma experienced by JonBenet, on the other hand, certainly had the potential to kill her but not necessarily quickly.
Head injuries can be remarkably quirky and if you factor in the youthfulness of JonBenet who knows what the outcome would have been from that injury alone.
Consider the following example:
In the days leading to her death, 4-year-old Emma Thompson suffered 80 contusions, a fractured skull, a brain hemorrhage and a vaginal tear.
About 12 to 24 hours before she died, the Spring girl was hit in the abdomen by an “unknown object,” causing blunt force trauma that killed her, according to court records filed by investigators and made available on Tuesday, the same day Emma's mother, Abigail Elizabeth Young, 33, and her boyfriend, Lucas Ruric Coe, 27, made their initial appearance at a bail hearing.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6569342.html


Also, with respect to the JonBenet case, specifically:

JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.
The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.
That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.
"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.
"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''
Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
July 16, 1997
Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News

 

[Toltec]

I'd say that Meyer’s wording was simply a safe way to phrase it.
After all, ligature strangulation is a guaranteed life ending event, less than 2 minutes or so and the victim will be clinically dead, 10 minutes, or so, and the victim will be biologically dead.
The severe head trauma experienced by JonBenet, on the other hand, certainly had the potential to kill her but not necessarily quickly.
Head injuries can be remarkably quirky and if you factor in the youthfulness of JonBenet who knows what the outcome would have been from that injury alone.
Consider the following example:
In the days leading to her death, 4-year-old Emma Thompson suffered 80 contusions, a fractured skull, a brain hemorrhage and a vaginal tear.
About 12 to 24 hours before she died, the Spring girl was hit in the abdomen by an “unknown object,” causing blunt force trauma that killed her, according to court records filed by investigators and made available on Tuesday, the same day Emma's mother, Abigail Elizabeth Young, 33, and her boyfriend, Lucas Ruric Coe, 27, made their initial appearance at a bail hearing.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6569342.html


Also, with respect to the JonBenet case, specifically:

JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
''She's been sexually assaulted,'' said Wright, who served as the medical examiner in Broward County, Fla., 13 years.
"She's had vaginal penetration.''
Wright -- who has done consulting for the FBI and worked on the Elvis Presley autopsy -- joined a growing chorus of out-of-town experts who see sexual assault as part of the unsolved Christmas night murder.
The experts reviewed the autopsy report released Monday by a judge's order.
"I think there's some kind of sexual assault,'' said Dr. Robert Kirschner, formerly deputy chief medical examiner in Cook County, Ill. He is now a clinical associate in department of pathology and pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
"There is evidence of acute injury'' in the vaginal area, Kirschner said.
Wright, whose best-known case as Broward Medical Examiner was the unsolved abduction and murder of 6-year-old Adam Walsh in Hollywood, Fla., was surprised to hear some experts are uncertain whether Boulder's slain beauty princess was sexually assaulted.
"Somebody's injured her vagina,'' said Wright. "And she's tied up. Doesn't that make it involuntary sexual battery?''
Wright said the presence of a small amount of food in JonBenet's small intestine -- possibly pineapple fragments -- indicates she died well after her final meal, most likely late at night or early in the morning.
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
Wright noted that the presence of "birefringent (shiny) foreign material'' in JonBenet's vaginal tract could be consistent with someone penetrating her while wearing rubber gloves.
That, combined with prior disclosures that someone appeared to wipe down the body, is inconsistent with a typical child sex offender.
"It's not the typical pattern of somebody who decides they like having sex with young girls,'' said Wright.
"This looks like something different. If you're into having sex with kids, it's usually not so subtle.''
Wright was particularly intrigued by the girl's empty bladder. Evacuation of the bladder often occurs at the time of death, he said, but it's usually only partial.
Complete emptying of the bladder, he said, would be consistent with her having done so intentionally while awake, near the time of the crime, or a bed-wetting.
July 16, 1997
Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News

Makes alot of sense...JonBenet getting hit over the head first. Some time had to have gone by between the head blow and strangulation. The killer had to take time to take her downstairs, change her clothes, fashion the garrote, turn her on her stomach and place it around her neck. That cord was placed on an already unconcious JonBenet because of the hair lying forward tangled to the cord.

 

[chemgirl]

This is just an aside,and probably too much information, but when I was a little girl, I had bladder/urethral area irritation due to my love of bubble baths; regular-sized underwear (with the crotch right up against me) was very uncomfortable. The solution? Much larger panties, which Mom & I bought just for that purpose. After stopping the bubble baths & drinking much more water, the problem was eliminated. But for a few days, I was wearing undies with a crotch nearly reaching my knees. That's why the size-12 Bloomies elicited but a shrug from me when I first read about them, years ago. I am a RDI person, due to other factors plus gut-feelings, so I am definitely not trying to throw any cold water on this topic. Just relating my experience with way-big undies.

 

[UKGuy]

This is just an aside,and probably too much information, but when I was a little girl, I had bladder/urethral area irritation due to my love of bubble baths; regular-sized underwear (with the crotch right up against me) was very uncomfortable. The solution? Much larger panties, which Mom & I bought just for that purpose. After stopping the bubble baths & drinking much more water, the problem was eliminated. But for a few days, I was wearing undies with a crotch nearly reaching my knees. That's why the size-12 Bloomies elicited but a shrug from me when I first read about them, years ago. I am a RDI person, due to other factors plus gut-feelings, so I am definitely not trying to throw any cold water on this topic. Just relating my experience with way-big undies.

chemgirl,
Thanks for your information, it always helps, even if only to eliminate certain theories.

Here there were no other larger sized underwear found, suggesting JonBenet did not regularly wear oversized underwear. Holly Smith was head of the Boulder County Sexual Abuse team. She analyzed JonBenet's underwear and soiling appeared to be the focus of her remarks. She made no mention of larger sized underwear.

Some IDI always highlight that the cord and duct-tape found at the crime-scene was brought into the house by the killer. Pointing to a premeditated homicide, yet the killer comes unprepared, no ranson note, and randomly selects a paintbrush from a tote, the killer probaly never knew existed?

Why do this? The ligature alone is sufficient to kill JonBenet, what does the paintbrush handle contribute. Well, personally, not much I think. So why bother?

On this basis, given the time and effort e.g. breaking the paintbrush, fashioning it, making those knots etc. I think its very likely that the missing piece was used to assault JonBenet, and that the purpose of that was an attempt to mask any acute molestation.

I think the missing piece is lying inside some sealed box, in a locked evidence cage, wherever they store the case materials.

Without the acute molestation I would go for PDI, otherwise its either JDI or BDI. Does not rule PDI out but makes it slightly less likely.

A constraining factor is the acute molestation since I'm not certain if you can argue from its occurrence as an aggravating factor, or one that is independent?

It does appear someone molested JonBenet and for some reason, either accidentally or deliberately injured JonBenet?

All the strange marks on her body, the force of the head trauma, the marking on her neck, all suggest to me someone throttled her, then as she became unconcious, released her allowing her to fall and cause the skull injury.

Alternatively someone lost it, bludgeoned her skull, throttled her, and pummeled her body with some strange object, causing those strange marks.


For whatever reason, someone close to JonBenet, lost their composure, probably because JonBenet said NO?




.

 

[DeeDee249]

Also, Patsy admitted to police in her interviews that she bought the large-size panties for her niece, who was several years older than JB. They weren't bought to treat JB's infections. A better way to have treated JB was to stop giving her bubble baths. How many doctor visits would it take for any mom here to stop the baths? JB had over 30 visits.

 

[Agatha_C]

Also, Patsy admitted to police in her interviews that she bought the large-size panties for her niece, who was several years older than JB. They weren't bought to treat JB's infections. A better way to have treated JB was to stop giving her bubble baths. How many doctor visits would it take for any mom here to stop the baths? JB had over 30 visits.

I was just about to say the very same things...LOL! Patsy didnt say they were for treatment of an infect. Instead she said, they were for her niece.

The more this stuff is discussed and analyzed the stupider this whole thing gets. These people were given far to much credit for intelligence when in fact, they were lucky idiots... Unreal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SunnieRN]

And this is only 1 tiny part of the case. Compound the idiocy by 1000 or more!

 

[UKGuy]

Also, Patsy admitted to police in her interviews that she bought the large-size panties for her niece, who was several years older than JB. They weren't bought to treat JB's infections. A better way to have treated JB was to stop giving her bubble baths. How many doctor visits would it take for any mom here to stop the baths? JB had over 30 visits.

DeeDee249,

So what has Patsy to worry about? She told it like it was, she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, and thats the reason why JonBenet must be wearing size-12's. Except that no size-12's were found in the underwear drawer or anywhere else in the house!

Why did she not say oh those are Jenny's, the intruder must have redressed JonBenet in them, and an explanation for the rest being missing, well the intruder has a fetish for underwear?

Quite likely because she did not know about the size-12's, otherwise if she had redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, then had the remainder removed her first explanation would never pass her lips.

Which suggests either Burke or John redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and with fibers from John's israeli manufactured shirt found on JonBenet's genital area, this might point to John as the redresser?

When questioned about the barbie doll Patsy never offered any explanation relating to a Christmas gift. Nothing zilch, yet our received wisdom is that both were Christmas gifts, so why the convoluted tale in one instance and relative silence on the other?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

So what has Patsy to worry about? She told it like it was, she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, and thats the reason why JonBenet must be wearing size-12's. Except that no size-12's were found in the underwear drawer or anywhere else in the house!

Why did she not say oh those are Jenny's, the intruder must have redressed JonBenet in them, and an explanation for the rest being missing, well the intruder has a fetish for underwear?

Quite likely because she did not know about the size-12's, otherwise if she had redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, then had the remainder removed her first explanation would never pass her lips.

Which suggests either Burke or John redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and with fibers from John's israeli manufactured shirt found on JonBenet's genital area, this might point to John as the redresser?

When questioned about the barbie doll Patsy never offered any explanation relating to a Christmas gift. Nothing zilch, yet our received wisdom is that both were Christmas gifts, so why the convoluted tale in one instance and relative silence on the other?



.

I can't imagine Patsy didn't know about the panties. She did admit buying them for Jenny, and she admitted wrapping presents in the basement, thought she falsely claimed to have put those panties in JB's drawer.
She had to have told JR where they were if she wasn't there herself. I agree JR was the redresser, regardless of who killed her. His fibers link him to those panties.
I have no idea why Patsy did not offer anything further on the doll. But frankly, I don't see where LE asked any specific questions about it. They mentioned the doll in their questioning, but I don't see that they asked why it was there. No questions about whether it was a gift that year. It had to be a gift for someone- the doll was not available before 1996. It was a special Holiday Barbie, they make a new and different one each Christmas season.

 

[Chrishope]

I can't imagine Patsy didn't know about the panties. She did admit buying them for Jenny, and she admitted wrapping presents in the basement, thought she falsely claimed to have put those panties in JB's drawer.
She had to have told JR where they were if she wasn't there herself. I agree JR was the redresser, regardless of who killed her. His fibers link him to those panties.
I have no idea why Patsy did not offer anything further on the doll. But frankly, I don't see where LE asked any specific questions about it. They mentioned the doll in their questioning, but I don't see that they asked why it was there. No questions about whether it was a gift that year. It had to be a gift for someone- the doll was not available before 1996. It was a special Holiday Barbie, they make a new and different one each Christmas season.

If I have my facts straight, JBR was redressed in the clothing she had on when the family arrived home that night. PR would have known the size 12s were wrong. She could only have told JR where to get them if the plan was to make it appear the "intruder" (who senselessly stops to redress her) didn't know any better. I think UKGuy is probably right, PR didn't know of the 12s until the police mentioned it to her.

 

[DeeDee249]

If I have my facts straight, JBR was redressed in the clothing she had on when the family arrived home that night. PR would have known the size 12s were wrong. She could only have told JR where to get them if the plan was to make it appear the "intruder" (who senselessly stops to redress her) didn't know any better. I think UKGuy is probably right, PR didn't know of the 12s until the police mentioned it to her.

JB had on only the TOP she had worn that day (a white Gap sweatshirt with a silver sequin star). Her bottoms were long johns that Patsy claimed to have put on a sleeping JB when they arrived home that night.
I still disagree about Patsy knowing about the panties. There are other reasons why those particular panties were used. For one- they were likely right there in the basement wrapped among other presents for Jenny, for whom they were originally bought. (we know there were partially unwrapped gifts found right there in the wineceller). Using a pair from the basement would eliminate the need to go upstairs and into JB's drawers for her own panties.
IF JB also owned a set of those Bloomies day-of-the-week panties in her OWN size, she may have been wearing the "Wednesday" pair that day to the White's, as Christmas Day was a Wednesday that year. It would have been a very "Patsy" thing to do, putting on the appropriate pair of panties. The Rs admitted that JB could not read...the chance that JB would have pulled out a pair that said "Wednesday" out of all the other panties there is unlikely. We also know that police found NO other size 12 panties anywhere in the house, including JB's panty drawer, and because Patsy sent along the rest of the set (6 remaining pairs) 5 years later still new in the package this kinda puts to rest that she actually put those size 12s in JB's drawer.
IF JB had worn her own pair of Wednesday panties, there is a chance that someone at the White's may have seen them, as JB was known to ask anyone around to help her in the bathroom. That is something that might have been remembered when questioned by police, and there was a good chance people at the party would be questioned by police. It may have felt necessary to redress JB in an identical (except for size) pair. I truly feel that the Rs thought no one would notice that they were too big on her. They were put on UNDER the long johns, after all, so it's not like they were hanging down. She was also dead (or dying) so she wasn't walking around in them. Looking at her in the longjohns, nothing looked out of the ordinary. I think they probably assumed JB would be undressed by the coroner, but just figured they'd be pulled off and that was that.

 

[cynic]

JB had on only the TOP she had worn that day (a white Gap sweatshirt with a silver sequin star). Her bottoms were long johns that Patsy claimed to have put on a sleeping JB when they arrived home that night.
I still disagree about Patsy knowing about the panties. There are other reasons why those particular panties were used. For one- they were likely right there in the basement wrapped among other presents for Jenny, for whom they were originally bought. (we know there were partially unwrapped gifts found right there in the wineceller). Using a pair from the basement would eliminate the need to go upstairs and into JB's drawers for her own panties.
IF JB also owned a set of those Bloomies day-of-the-week panties in her OWN size, she may have been wearing the "Wednesday" pair that day to the White's, as Christmas Day was a Wednesday that year. It would have been a very "Patsy" thing to do, putting on the appropriate pair of panties. The Rs admitted that JB could not read...the chance that JB would have pulled out a pair that said "Wednesday" out of all the other panties there is unlikely. We also know that police found NO other size 12 panties anywhere in the house, including JB's panty drawer, and because Patsy sent along the rest of the set (6 remaining pairs) 5 years later still new in the package this kinda puts to rest that she actually put those size 12s in JB's drawer.
IF JB had worn her own pair of Wednesday panties, there is a chance that someone at the White's may have seen them, as JB was known to ask anyone around to help her in the bathroom. That is something that might have been remembered when questioned by police, and there was a good chance people at the party would be questioned by police. It may have felt necessary to redress JB in an identical (except for size) pair. I truly feel that the Rs thought no one would notice that they were too big on her. They were put on UNDER the long johns, after all, so it's not like they were hanging down. She was also dead (or dying) so she wasn't walking around in them. Looking at her in the longjohns, nothing looked out of the ordinary. I think they probably assumed JB would be undressed by the coroner, but just figured they'd be pulled off and that was that.

That is exactly the way I see it.

 

[Chrishope]

JB had on only the TOP she had worn that day (a white Gap sweatshirt with a silver sequin star). Her bottoms were long johns that Patsy claimed to have put on a sleeping JB when they arrived home that night.
I still disagree about Patsy knowing about the panties. There are other reasons why those particular panties were used. For one- they were likely right there in the basement wrapped among other presents for Jenny, for whom they were originally bought. (we know there were partially unwrapped gifts found right there in the wineceller). Using a pair from the basement would eliminate the need to go upstairs and into JB's drawers for her own panties.
IF JB also owned a set of those Bloomies day-of-the-week panties in her OWN size, she may have been wearing the "Wednesday" pair that day to the White's, as Christmas Day was a Wednesday that year. It would have been a very "Patsy" thing to do, putting on the appropriate pair of panties. The Rs admitted that JB could not read...the chance that JB would have pulled out a pair that said "Wednesday" out of all the other panties there is unlikely. We also know that police found NO other size 12 panties anywhere in the house, including JB's panty drawer, and because Patsy sent along the rest of the set (6 remaining pairs) 5 years later still new in the package this kinda puts to rest that she actually put those size 12s in JB's drawer.
IF JB had worn her own pair of Wednesday panties, there is a chance that someone at the White's may have seen them, as JB was known to ask anyone around to help her in the bathroom. That is something that might have been remembered when questioned by police, and there was a good chance people at the party would be questioned by police. It may have felt necessary to redress JB in an identical (except for size) pair. I truly feel that the Rs thought no one would notice that they were too big on her. They were put on UNDER the long johns, after all, so it's not like they were hanging down. She was also dead (or dying) so she wasn't walking around in them. Looking at her in the longjohns, nothing looked out of the ordinary. I think they probably assumed JB would be undressed by the coroner, but just figured they'd be pulled off and that was that.

Thank you for refreshing my memory. The longjohns supposedly were put on her while she slept in her bed. She was then -supposedly- put to bed still wearing the white GAP shirt she'd worn all day?

You make a good point that putting the size 12s with the WED. marker made it look like the same pair she had on at the party. I'm still a bit skeptical though.

Being a male, and having no daughters, I'd have absolutely no idea what size panties a 6 year old girl wears. Most women would know. That means if she had size 12 panties on at the party, and someone was asked to help her in the bathroom, a woman would have noticed if she had 12s on. A man probably wouldn't. Of course we know she wasn't wearing 12s at the party.

There is also the problem of why PR said she put them in JBR's drawer. She had no reason to say it if she knew the panties were in the basement. She could just let the police suppose the intruder put them on her - and the intruder would have done it because they were handy and being a guy, the intruder wouldn't know they were the wrong size.

JBR's undie drawer is an odd place to keep presents, even underwear. As you point out, other gifts were in the basement. For some reason, PR wanted the police to suppose that the 12s had been in the drawer, and that the intruder put them on her in her bedroom. Or when informed that JBR was wearing 12s, that's the first story she could manufacture to make it seem to make sense.

I don't really see why PR would want to save time not going back upstairs for the correct size. They had hours and hours to stage the "kidnapping gone wrong".

I think it's quite possible there were multiple stagings, and that PR maybe didn't know about a re-re-staging with the 12s.

 

[UKGuy]

I can't imagine Patsy didn't know about the panties. She did admit buying them for Jenny, and she admitted wrapping presents in the basement, thought she falsely claimed to have put those panties in JB's drawer.
She had to have told JR where they were if she wasn't there herself. I agree JR was the redresser, regardless of who killed her. His fibers link him to those panties.
I have no idea why Patsy did not offer anything further on the doll. But frankly, I don't see where LE asked any specific questions about it. They mentioned the doll in their questioning, but I don't see that they asked why it was there. No questions about whether it was a gift that year. It had to be a gift for someone- the doll was not available before 1996. It was a special Holiday Barbie, they make a new and different one each Christmas season.

DeeDee249,

I can't imagine Patsy didn't know about the panties.

Well nothing she said suggested she did. She offered a contradiction instead normally this occurs when someone thinks the evidence cannot be checked. If Patsy redressed JonBenet and removed the remainder then she would have been aware what she was saying was nonsense.

It could be that the selection of a Wednesday pair was to run along the same line as JonBenet's headstone dedication suggesting death prior to 12:00, who knows?

The point to note about the wine-cellar staging is not the location or that JonBenet was secreted away inside but that JonBenet was redressed when she need not be, and that whomever completed it messed it up by redressing JonBenet in those size-12's.

The precise rationale for this, we cannot be certain of, but trading the actual size in preference for the day-of-the-week, seems like a lose lose decision however you look at it. Consider the converse JonBenet is discovered in size-6 underwear stating any day-of-the-week except for Wednesday. Now personally that would have been my choice, since, unless you actually know JonBenet shared a toilet with someone else, it seems less of a risk than the visibly wrong size of the size-12's. And of course since its a staging event intended to convince someone I reckon I'll just go upstairs and fetch a pair of size-6's. For all we know, there was another Wednesday pair in her underwear drawer? The exact detail of what was removed has never been revealed. That is JonBenet may have been found wearing a brand new pair of size-12 Bloomingdales marked with Wednesday, with the remainder returned all those years later, likely confirming their origin? This does not mean there was not a Wednesday pair of size-6's in her underwear drawer!


As per the alleged RDI, it was John who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, likely selecting the Wednesday pair on grounds of consistency. I reckon John was was amending some aspects of a prior staging?


.