The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Chrishope]

Since we know JB is wearing a pair of size 12s labeled Wednesday, we can say this is consistent with PRs story that she bought the panties as a gift for her niece, and that one package was opened before it was wrapped.

I had originally thought that JR could have put the size 12s on her w/o really knowing they were way too big. On further reflection, I think that's wrong. The main reason for the theory of JR redressing JB is because he had to undress her again to try to cover evidence of prior abuse. But IF (note that I say IF) JR abused JB in the past, he'd have been familiar with the fit of her undies. He might not have noted the exact size, but he'd have enough familiarity taking off her panties to know the 12s were way too large. We can either speculate that JR did not abuse JB in the past, and was not the redresser, or we must surmise that the size 12s were placed on her despite their size. Neither JR or PR could have put those size 12s on JBR w/o realizing they were too big.

So if either PR or JR are the re-dresser, the size 12s must have been chosen for other qualities despite their size. A couple possibilities already mentioned - the size 12s were available with the label for "Wednesday" which may have been important for some reason we don't know about, or may have been assumed to be important, by the re-dresser", even though it wasn't really important. Another is that the size 12s, if the came straight from the package, were "clean" as far as forensic evidence goes. Being careful not to touch them, nothing on a brand new pair of panties could point back at the person who put them on her.

If there was a whole package of day of the week panties, then it would seem these size 12s were selected because they said "Wednesday" - otherwise why not just use the top pair? (Sunday or Monday?)

 

[Chrishope]

Another question, hopefully one of you with greater knowledge can shed some light on this - why would it matter what panties were put on her, since we are asked to believe an intruder redressed her after abusing and killing her? There is no particular trouble believing the intruder grabbed any old pair to put on her - at least after one gets over the initial skepticism that an intruder would bother redressing her at all.

As Dee Dee points out, maybe someone at the party noted she had on Wed. panties? Or maybe just the possibility of this made it necessary to select Wed. panties?

Still another question - if sexual abuse had occurred the night of the murder, it's unlikely it occurred with her panties on. It's quite possible she died w/o panties on, so why not replace the (presumed) size 6s on her again?

Finally (for now) if she had her own size 6 panties on when she died, and had a release of feces and urine, why not just wash the panties? Perhaps they could not risk Burke hearing the washing machine and dryer going?

 

[Whaleshark]

Okay, first, real quick....I just want to ask very nicely....not to fight or anything, but to very politely suggest: CanManEh, I like having your insight into the discussion, but I do have a hard time reading your posts with no punctuation or grammar whatsoever. I end up having to skim over your stuff and not read it thoroughly because it's hard to follow.

Now when I start going on my trains of thoughts, I usually resort to no caps often myself, but I do think it is helpful to have some grammar and punctuation, paragraphs and separation.

Ugh, I sound like friggin word police, sorry...I'm just trying to suggest that your posts would be a little easier to follow...feel free to flip me off now if you want

 

[Whaleshark]

Continuing the evolution -

We know at least one pair of size 12 day of the week panties, labeled Wednesday, were available in the house. (If we don't agree on this we have to shift to IDI).

Agreed to a point - she could have gotten them as a replacement pair while visiting at the White's that evening after having an accident, as mentioned that has happened before. But then as I stated earlier, why not say that might have been what happened, and couldn't that have been checked up on and verified, if it did occur? But no, PR said JBR put them on herself, and they were available to her in her drawer.

One way to make a little "sense" of PRs claim is to assume she told the truth. That would explain JB wearing the size 12s. JB put them on herself. One package was opened and they could no longer be given as a gift, so were placed in JBs undie drawer and were available for her to put on.

This doesn't explain where the size 12s came from, but then, neither does any other scenario. I mean we can't prove where they came from because the police supposedly didn't find them.

Right....

So a lot of underwear was removed from the house, but the inventory list doesn't really tell us about size or day of the week.

I'd have to say that we don't really know what the police found or did not find, with any certainty.

We might speculate that they didn't find a package of size 12 day of the week panties, because the Rs supply those years later.

If the Rs knew the size 12s were found, there is no reason to have "found" the package years later and give them to police. Still, they may only have been supplying the unopened package.

Right, and why would they be missing in the first place.

Another problem with determining what was found or not found by police is that they don't start making an evidence inventory list until after JB is "found". Earlier in the day, everybody and his brother were at the house and were free to wander. Also the Rs were not searched (I think I have that correct) before leaving. So who knows what was taken before the police started to inventory items.

Right, and same answer - if they were taken along with several other things, then why would they have been taken away in the first place?

We can either speculate that JR did not abuse JB in the past, and was not the redresser, or we must surmise that the size 12s were placed on her despite their size. Neither JR or PR could have put those size 12s on JBR w/o realizing they were too big.

Right, and there we are... and here we go....

If there was a whole package of day of the week panties, then it would seem these size 12s were selected because they said "Wednesday" - otherwise why not just use the top pair? (Sunday or Monday?)..

Testimony:

4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.

Finally (for now) if she had her own size 6 panties on when she died, and had a release of feces and urine, why not just wash the panties? Perhaps they could not risk Burke hearing the washing machine and dryer going?

washer and dryer were down in the basement area/floor level by the wine cellar anyway...don't know if that would have been a concern, maybe. but i doubt it.

we keep going in circles though, don't we? once we work through the logic of it, we go, well crap, maybe JBR did just put those on herself that evening, because after all, she was supposedly being stubborn about what she wanted to wear to the party and maybe that package was never sent to Jenny, and maybe it was in JBRs room, and maybe she did open them herself and was determined to wear them no matter how big they were after all, right? ..and as you stated, perhaps it was not a smoking gun, Patsy just misspoke, and now the too much info being false needed to be kept straight?...

...but then, wait...why the need to do that at all? why the need to lie about any of it, if there was nothing to hide or explain away in the first place?

In the testimony I posted earlier, Patsy is asked if JBR had day of the week underwear of her own and she said yes. And she would just pick whichever ones she wanted, not concerned about day of the week or anything, and just wear them. So why would she want to open the new pkg. of the same kind that did not fit her? And why would she want the ones that were bought for jenny if she had ones just like that anyway. why would she even pick those then?

And if the answer is really a simple answer, that they were the original underwear she had put on that night herself, and whoever wiped JBR down and pulled her underwear and longjohns back up, just left the same ones on her, then: where were the rest of them - the other size 12s, if they were part of a package? Why were the rest not found in the first place?

MORE TESTIMONY by Patsy:


22 Q. Do you recall that you did -- you
23 never mailed this pair out to --
24 A. Jenny, yes.
25 Q. Okay. So if there was an
0112
1 unopened package, it would have been left in
2 the house?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey,
5 prior to going to the Whites, did you see
6 JonBenet in panties? In other words, were
7 you at any point, prior to going to the
8 Whites, in the process of her getting
9 dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing
10 panties?
11 A. I mean, I just probably didn't
12 notice. I would, she must have had them on
13 or I would have certainly noticed if she
14 didn't have any on.
15 Q. When you came home and you got
16 her ready for bed, did you notice if she was
17 wearing panties? When you changed her out
18 of the black velvet --
19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
20 Q. - type pants --
21 A. Right.
22 Q. -- and into the long underwear
23 pants --
24 A. Uh-huh, right.
25 Q. -- the White ones, did you notice

0113
1 if she had a pair of panties on?
2 A. Yes, she did. I believe she did.
3 Q. Why do you remember that? I
4 mean, what do you remember? I just want to
5 know what you remember about that.
6 A. Well, I took the jeans off and
7 put the long leggies on.
8 Q. And you noticed that she had
9 panties on in that process?
10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
11 Q. You have to answer yes or no.
12 A. Well, I noticed -- I mean,
13 nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't
14 had panties on, it would have been unusual.
15 So --
16 Q. So there was nothing unusual
17 there?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. When you actually removed those --
20 you have -- they are black velvet pants?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And did the panties come down
23 with them when you removed those pants, if
24 you remember?
25 A. I don't remember.

0114
1 Q. If they had, would you remember,
2 or is that too long ago?
3 A. It has been a long time.
4 Q. But did you change -- did you put
5 a fresh pair of panties on her at that point
6 when you were getting her ready for bed?
7 A. No.
8 Q. (By Mr. Wickman) Mrs. Ramsey, I
9 have a daughter myself, and kids do strange
10 things, but was it her habit, when she
11 changed clothes, did she have a routine to
12 put them in a basket if they were dirty?
13 How did that work?
14 A. She usually probably dropped them
15 wherever they came off.
16 MR. WICKMAN: Okay. Thank you.
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Was that pretty
18 much her practice with most of her clothes?
19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
20 Q. I mean, not just her underwear,
21 just they are off, new pair?
22 A. (Witness nodded head
23 affirmatively).
__

If she's telling the truth, and if she saw nothing unusual since she claimed to have been the one to remove the pants and put on the longjohns, AND she claims JBR dressed herself in the size 12s, and is why she was in them, AND that Patsy did not change JBRs underwear that night along with the longjohns as stated above, then she is saying that 1) she was in the size 12s already when she put JBR in the longjohns, and 2) that would not have been unusual in her eyes.

Do we believe that - that she would have left her in the size 12s and that would not have looked unusual to her? And if she really did, where is the rest of the size 12s?
___

John Ramsey testimony re: underwear -

Q. We asked Mrs. Ramsey about the Bloomi's underpants that JonBenet was wearing when she was found murdered, and we are trying to kind of track those from purchase to her. And again, I suspect you probably don't have detailed information --
A. No.
Q. -- about your child's underwear, but you can see why I need to ask the questions; right?
A. Right.
Q. We believe that they were purchased in November of 1996. Were you aware of their existence before JonBenet's death?
A. No, but I wouldn't have been. But I mean, I -- what I know is what was asked of Patsy when she said, you know, we were on a trip to New York. She bought them and I think had planned to give them to her niece, who is older than JonBenet, and then they, for some reason, decided that JonBenet would have them. I don't know if she wanted them or if Patsy gave them to her, but --
Q. The niece that they were purchased for, I think, was Jenny Davis?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. Do you recall approximately how big she was in 1996? I know it is a tough question.
A. She's either a junior or a senior in high school now. And she's fairly stocky.
Q. Was there anything about the Bloomi's underwear that was particularly, other than the fact that they come from Bloomingdale's, fascinating that caused them to be, you know, JonBenet would talk about them or something, like I have these cool panties that have the days of the week, anything that would direct your attention to them?
A. No, no.
Q. As far as the size, they were for an 85-pound girl. Were you aware she was wearing these real big panties?
A. Only after the fact.
Q. After the fact?
A. Yeah.
Q. Our information that we developed from the grand, well -- after the grand jury, actually, were you unaware of any incident where JonBenet had any accidents at school where she would have to go into the extra panty box that most grammar schools keep for young kids? Do you have a memory of an incident that is contrary to that?
A. At school?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. (By Chief Beckner) Did you, the night of the 25th, did you help undress JonBenet?
A. I did. I think I was asked that before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took her shoes off. I don't know if I took her coat off. Usually what I would do is try to get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't infrequent she would fall to sleep when we came home like that, before we got home. Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally.
Q. I guess what I mean is, did you notice at that time whether she was or was not wearing underwear?
A. I mean, I think I would have noticed if she wasn't. But I don't remember. I really don't.
Q. Do you recall if you took her underwear off?
A. No, I'm sure I did not.
___

ok, so nobody has touched these size 12 underwear with a ten-foot pole...

except JBR...

Sigh...

 

[Chrishope]

we keep going in circles though, don't we?

That's how it usually goes in this case. We examine things from every angle and think we're about to figure something out, then we end up right where we started.

As usual there is no use asking the Rs questions, because they "don't know", or "didn't notice". No, I don't believe JB was wearing size 12s when (and if) PR put the long johns on her -she'd definitely have noticed. But the reason I say there is no smoking gun is that all PR has to do is say she didn't notice. We may not believe that, but we can't prove otherwise.

If JB was wearing the 12s to the party, then she was literally redressed, and not re-re-dressed.

 

[UKGuy]

Another question, hopefully one of you with greater knowledge can shed some light on this - why would it matter what panties were put on her, since we are asked to believe an intruder redressed her after abusing and killing her? There is no particular trouble believing the intruder grabbed any old pair to put on her - at least after one gets over the initial skepticism that an intruder would bother redressing her at all.

As Dee Dee points out, maybe someone at the party noted she had on Wed. panties? Or maybe just the possibility of this made it necessary to select Wed. panties?

Still another question - if sexual abuse had occurred the night of the murder, it's unlikely it occurred with her panties on. It's quite possible she died w/o panties on, so why not replace the (presumed) size 6s on her again?

Finally (for now) if she had her own size 6 panties on when she died, and had a release of feces and urine, why not just wash the panties? Perhaps they could not risk Burke hearing the washing machine and dryer going?

Chrishope,

Another question, hopefully one of you with greater knowledge can shed some light on this - why would it matter what panties were put on her, since we are asked to believe an intruder redressed her after abusing and killing her?

No, this is not the case. The R's are suggesting JonBenet was found as dressed by them for bed the night before.

Our postmortem assumption is that someone redressed JonBenet in the size-12's. Patsy's assertion is that JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's because Patsy had placed them into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Note the R's are not claiming the intruder redressed JonBenet.

why would it matter what panties were put on her,

Because if you are staging a crime-scene that simulates a bedtime abduction you might want JonBenet to be wearing her usual underwear e.g. sourced from her underwear drawer.

This was the big mistake, the kind Columbo always has one more question about. Columbo always knows what seems like a mistake to us, makes perfect sense for the perpetrator, since the perp does not use our rule book.

This is why the Wednesday feature is unimportant since why does the perp bother with the day-of-the-week but manifestly ignore the size?

Without any other evidence the size-12's allow us to infer staging, whereas size-6's would still have us scratching our heads.

I reckon either the redresser did not want Patsy to know the underwear had been changed or in the chaos of the moment forgot to tell her.

Forgoing crime-scene authenticity by using those size-12's instead of size-6's , which were available upstairs, suggests to me that the redresser was attempting to conceal something?

Still another question - if sexual abuse had occurred the night of the murder, it's unlikely it occurred with her panties on. It's quite possible she died w/o panties on, so why not replace the (presumed) size 6s on her again?

Precisely, and were these a Wednesday pair? Maybe there is a Wednesday pair in her underwear drawer.


Lets assume that the same person who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's was the same person who decided to remove the size-6's. Presumably Patsy was ignorant about this too, why so?


.

 

[UKGuy]

OK i don't know the facts like any of you do and i dont try to so i mostly just ask questions .SO something i had heard before was that one the underwear were from somewhere else like maybe where they had went on vacation thats a guess and i ask that because i have a daughter and she in everything is a size 7 she is 8 years old but just buying different brands of underwear or other clothing too its allways different from 7 in a say fruit of the looms to a 7 in a say tiffany's or anywhere different brands are usually different sizes i know also for me i get screwed up when it goes from sizes to small medium or large so i guess what iam wondering is could a mistake of been made like different brand from normal or were they in a size instead of a number . and the one other thing about underwear i wonder about is the dna back then is was very very common for thier to be underwear bins and allthough your not sapose too iam sure girls try them on and if its to big or small they put them back so if u bought the whole underwear and pajama set at the same store could the dna not be from the same person that worked in the store at the time and that handles the items ...like i said all just questions .

CanManEh,
The size-12 underwear JonBenet was found wearing at the autopsy was purchased by Patsy at Bloomingdales in New York for her niece Jenny who was aged Ten or Eleven at the time?

Patsy in her interview, see elsewhere on this page, confirms these details.


.

 

[CanManEh]

Okay, first, real quick....I just want to ask very nicely....not to fight or anything, but to very politely suggest: CanManEh, I like having your insight into the discussion, but I do have a hard time reading your posts with no punctuation or grammar whatsoever. I end up having to skim over your stuff and not read it thoroughly because it's hard to follow.

Now when I start going on my trains of thoughts, I usually resort to no caps often myself, but I do think it is helpful to have some grammar and punctuation, paragraphs and separation.

Ugh, I sound like friggin word police, sorry...I'm just trying to suggest that your posts would be a little easier to follow...feel free to flip me off now if you want

Dude it was like 5 am. My grammar and punctuation was the last thing on my mind . If you are having problems reading my posts thier is really only one thing that you can do and that's don't read them because Iam not going back to school just to please you nor am i gonna worry about it at 5 am when I cant sleep because its 40 degree's out. Sorry about your luck .

 

[Chrishope]

No, this is not the case. The R's are suggesting JonBenet was found as dressed by them for bed the night before.

Our postmortem assumption is that someone redressed JonBenet in the size-12's. Patsy's assertion is that JonBenet dressed herself in the size-12's because Patsy had placed them into JonBenet's underwear drawer. Note the R's are not claiming the intruder redressed JonBenet.

Well that's true, the Rs aren't directly claiming that JB was redressed, but (assuming the Rs are the re-dressers) they are leaving us to conclude that.

Perhaps it's something they didn't think through, focusing instead on having her dressed as she was when put to bed?

Because if you are staging a crime-scene that simulates a bedtime abduction you might want JonBenet to be wearing her usual underwear e.g. sourced from her underwear drawer.

This was the big mistake, the kind Columbo always has one more question about. Columbo always knows what seems like a mistake to us, makes perfect sense for the perpetrator, since the perp does not use our rule book.

Right, that's what I was trying to get at, though perhaps I didn't state it clearly. The Rs story is that JB was "found" wearing what she had on at bedtime. The implication is that the intruder redressed her. (And you're absolutely right that the Rs are not claiming redressing. But they are leaving us to make that conclusion and ponder why it would be done)

Since that isn't believable in the first place, and since if the intruder did take the unlikely step of redressing, he'd have no reason to care about redressing her as she was at bedtime, what does it matter what panties are used?

But panties were used, when she probably should have been left naked.

In other words, why was it so important to the Rs to maintain the story that she was wearing the same thing at bedtime as when "found"?

This is why the Wednesday feature is unimportant since why does the perp bother with the day-of-the-week but manifestly ignore the size?

Or possibly just the opposite? The Wed. feature was of such importance that it overrode the size issue?

Forgoing crime-scene authenticity by using those size-12's instead of size-6's , which were available upstairs, suggests to me that the redresser was attempting to conceal something?

Or, to reveal something? I think we agree that the crime scene would have been more realistic (from the POV of IDI) if she were left partially naked. Crime scene authenticity was foregone by redressing her at all. The only feature the 12s have that is consistent with the overall story the Rs are telling -JB was put to bed wearing such and such and found wearing the same thing- is the Wed. label.

I reckon either the redresser did not want Patsy to know the underwear had been changed or in the chaos of the moment forgot to tell her.

Quite possible. But I'm wondering why a change of panties would be necessary? Supposing the vaginal trauma suffered the night of the murder was an attempt to cover up prior abuse, she had to be wiped down, but why change panties?

Let's take it step by step. A popular RDI theory is that PR/JR conspire in a staging. Then, unbeknown to PR, JR causes vaginal injuries designed to hide prior abuse. We might say there was a staging and a re-staging. Assuming JB had panties on at the end of the first staging, why would it be necessary to substitute different panties at the end of the re-staging? The panties were probably removed so that the vaginal injuries could be made? So after cleaning up the blood, why put different panties on? Why not the same ones she had on at the end of the initial staging?

We are attempting to understand why PR wouldn't know about the size 12s. We believe she's been caught in a lie. Explanations evolve as to why 12s were placed on JB w/o PRs knowledge. As the theory goes JR substituted them for what JB had been wearing. But I don't see the necessity. If JB had been wearing panties before the vaginal injuries were inflicted, why not use those same panties ? If the same panties are used, there is nothing that needs to be explained to PR, and nothing "wrong" that she will find out later.

Also, we might assume that at the end of the initial staging JB is dressed as she was when put to bed (or at least as the Rs are going to claim she was dressed when put to bed) So at that point, she is dressed "correctly"? This seems to have been an important element for the Rs, so why tamper with that? In short, what reason is there for a change of panties at the end of the re-staging?

 

[UKGuy]

Well that's true, the Rs aren't directly claiming that JB was redressed, but (assuming the Rs are the re-dressers) they are leaving us to conclude that.

Perhaps it's something they didn't think through, focusing instead on having her dressed as she was when put to bed?

Right, that's what I was trying to get at, though perhaps I didn't state it clearly. The Rs story is that JB was "found" wearing what she had on at bedtime. The implication is that the intruder redressed her. (And you're absolutely right that the Rs are not claiming redressing. But they are leaving us to make that conclusion and ponder why it would be done)

Since that isn't believable in the first place, and since if the intruder did take the unlikely step of redressing, he'd have no reason to care about redressing her as she was at bedtime, what does it matter what panties are used?

But panties were used, when she probably should have been left naked.

In other words, why was it so important to the Rs to maintain the story that she was wearing the same thing at bedtime as when "found"?

Or possibly just the opposite? The Wed. feature was of such importance that it overrode the size issue?

Or, to reveal something? I think we agree that the crime scene would have been more realistic (from the POV of IDI) if she were left partially naked. Crime scene authenticity was foregone by redressing her at all. The only feature the 12s have that is consistent with the overall story the Rs are telling -JB was put to bed wearing such and such and found wearing the same thing- is the Wed. label.


Quite possible. But I'm wondering why a change of panties would be necessary? Supposing the vaginal trauma suffered the night of the murder was an attempt to cover up prior abuse, she had to be wiped down, but why change panties?

Let's take it step by step. A popular RDI theory is that PR/JR conspire in a staging. Then, unbeknown to PR, JR causes vaginal injuries designed to hide prior abuse. We might say there was a staging and a re-staging. Assuming JB had panties on at the end of the first staging, why would it be necessary to substitute different panties at the end of the re-staging? The panties were probably removed so that the vaginal injuries could be made? So after cleaning up the blood, why put different panties on? Why not the same ones she had on at the end of the initial staging?

We are attempting to understand why PR wouldn't know about the size 12s. We believe she's been caught in a lie. Explanations evolve as to why 12s were placed on JB w/o PRs knowledge. As the theory goes JR substituted them for what JB had been wearing. But I don't see the necessity. If JB had been wearing panties before the vaginal injuries were inflicted, why not use those same panties ? If the same panties are used, there is nothing that needs to be explained to PR, and nothing "wrong" that she will find out later.

Also, we might assume that at the end of the initial staging JB is dressed as she was when put to bed (or at least as the Rs are going to claim she was dressed when put to bed) So at that point, she is dressed "correctly"? This seems to have been an important element for the Rs, so why tamper with that? In short, what reason is there for a change of panties at the end of the re-staging?

Chrishope,

But panties were used, when she probably should have been left naked.

Precisely.

In other words, why was it so important to the Rs to maintain the story that she was wearing the same thing at bedtime as when "found"?

So that they are not implicated in the intervening period e.g. they all slept soundly.

Or possibly just the opposite? The Wed. feature was of such importance that it overrode the size issue?

Not quite since the size feature has alerted us to a staged crime-scene in a manner a Tuesday size-6 pair would not have. In the latter scenario Patsy would not need to fabricate an underwear story. Its like the Pink Barbie Nightgown, the color is not that important, the fact its found in the wine-cellar is.

Or, to reveal something? I think we agree that the crime scene would have been more realistic (from the POV of IDI) if she were left partially naked. Crime scene authenticity was foregone by redressing her at all. The only feature the 12s have that is consistent with the overall story the Rs are telling -JB was put to bed wearing such and such and found wearing the same thing- is the Wed. label.

Not quite, since the R's are making no claims regarding JonBenet's underwear, not even the Day Of The Week feature, since this would contradict their claim not to have noticed JonBenet's underwear!

Without an external observer to validate that JonBenet wore a Wednesday pair of underwear, which would normally be a parent, the Day Of The Week feature is interesting but incidental.

Also, we might assume that at the end of the initial staging JB is dressed as she was when put to bed (or at least as the Rs are going to claim she was dressed when put to bed) So at that point, she is dressed "correctly"? This seems to have been an important element for the Rs, so why tamper with that? In short, what reason is there for a change of panties at the end of the re-staging?

Good questions. I would assume that her original underwear was forensically stained. Probably with semen, blood and/or saliva etc. Otherwise as you suggest why not use these and save yourself a lot of explaining?

Her original size-6 underwear was likely used to wipe JonBenet down. The extent to which JonBenet was cleaned up is an open question e.g. was she soaped down, or just wiped free of any visible contaminant?

To me, in the absence of further evidence, it appears that someone was hiding JonBenet's acute sexual assault, by dressing her in the size-12's and longjohns, then wrapping her in the white blanket.

Psychologically it resembles the russian doll with the wine-cellar representing the outer shell.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

It's unlikely JB's undies were used to wipe her down, unless they were black or navy. That is the color of the fibers found on her pubic area and thighs.
Semen would be unlikely too, as none was found in or on the body or anywhere at the crime scene. There WERE semen stains found on the dark comforter (belonging to JAR) which was inside the suitcase in the basement. LS really tried to make that suitcase part of the crime. Interesting that he totally ignored the items IN the suitcase- the semen-stained blanket sourced to JAR - the semen was also sourced to JAR- the children's book (an odd item to be found in a suitcase admittedly used to go back and forth from the campus by JAR.

 

[SunnieRN]

You know what your Mom always said, "If you tell a lie, you'll end up having to tell another one, to cover the first one up".

Too bad no one taught Patsy and John about that!

It's just too bad that LE didn't push harder to get the truth.

As for Patsys statements. When she changed JonBenet that night, she states there was nothing 'unusual'. Size 12 undies would most certainly be 'unusual' and I could see Patsy worrying about what people would think if they had helped JonBenet in the bathroom while she was wearing size 12 undies.

The undies were put on JonBenet after the assault. As to who did it. Someone who knew where to find them.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

So that they are not implicated in the intervening period e.g. they all slept soundly.

The Rs could have claimed to sleep soundly through the night whether or not JB had panties on. To put it another way, staging that is improbable doesn't make it more likely they slept soundly. Perhaps in their minds, it did, but in reality no. I had supposed that it was important for the same reasons you state - to "prove" they slept through the events. Now I'm not so sure. Even in a panic it should not have taken much thought to realize the "intruder" wouldn't bother redressing her.

Not quite since the size feature has alerted us to a staged crime-scene in a manner a Tuesday size-6 pair would not have. In the latter scenario Patsy would not need to fabricate an underwear story. Its like the Pink Barbie Nightgown, the color is not that important, the fact its found in the wine-cellar is.

But the redressing, and a lot of other things, alert us to the likelihood of staging anyway. And we don't really know if Tuesday size 6s wouldn't have required explanation - possibly the Rs knew something that made them think Wed. was important? On the whole I'd say you're probably right, the wed. feature may be a red herring. But it's good to maintain an open mind about other possibilities.

Not quite, since the R's are making no claims regarding JonBenet's underwear, not even the Day Of The Week feature, since this would contradict their claim not to have noticed JonBenet's underwear!

Without an external observer to validate that JonBenet wore a Wednesday pair of underwear, which would normally be a parent, the Day Of The Week feature is interesting but incidental.

They are making no statements that JB wore Wed. panties when put to bed. In fact they are stating they don't know what panties she wore. But by redressing her, they may be trying for consistency with what they knew to be true ?

I think there is a fair possibility that JB went to bed wearing 12s. If a package had been opened and given to JB she might well have put them on herself. They were ridiculously large, but her pants (trousers) would have kept them in place. Perhaps wearing them made JB feel older? Kids like feeling more grown up than they are. If this is true, she wore 12s to bed, then she was simply redressed as per bed time.

This scenario eliminates the question of why the 12s were put back on, and where the 6s went. It still leaves us wondering where the 12s came from and where the other 12s, -packaged or loose- went to.

Good questions. I would assume that her original underwear was forensically stained. Probably with semen, blood and/or saliva etc. Otherwise as you suggest why not use these and save yourself a lot of explaining?

Her original size-6 underwear was likely used to wipe JonBenet down. The extent to which JonBenet was cleaned up is an open question e.g. was she soaped down, or just wiped free of any visible contaminant?

To me, in the absence of further evidence, it appears that someone was hiding JonBenet's acute sexual assault, by dressing her in the size-12's and longjohns, then wrapping her in the white blanket.

Psychologically it resembles the russian doll with the wine-cellar representing the outer shell.


.

You make a good point about the panties being there to hide the vaginal injuries inflicted that night. That might be necessary if PR didn't know about the injuries. Couldn't leave her naked in case PR came back down to take one last look. And psychologically the layers of clothes and blanket separate the person who did the deed from the deed itself.

I don't know how child molesters work, but thinking of the mechanics of it, I'd guess the size 6 panties (if indeed she was wearing size 6 panties) were removed before sexual activity (if that took place that night) and vaginal injuries were inflicted. But I could be wrong, they may only have been pulled down, not very far down, and become forensically stained, as you suggest.

Panties are fairly small, so I doubt they were used to wipe her down. But it's certainly possible.

 

[Chrishope]

It's unlikely JB's undies were used to wipe her down, unless they were black or navy. That is the color of the fibers found on her pubic area and thighs.
Semen would be unlikely too, as none was found in or on the body or anywhere at the crime scene. There WERE semen stains found on the dark comforter (belonging to JAR) which was inside the suitcase in the basement. LS really tried to make that suitcase part of the crime. Interesting that he totally ignored the items IN the suitcase- the semen-stained blanket sourced to JAR - the semen was also sourced to JAR- the children's book (an odd item to be found in a suitcase admittedly used to go back and forth from the campus by JAR.

I think I read that the panties were a floral print. Most flowers are not black or navy, so likely the panties were fairly light in color.

I've always thought that the semen stains on the comforter could be explained by masturbation/wet dream on some prior occasion when JAR had stayed at the house.

 

[Chrishope]

Y

As for Patsys statements. When she changed JonBenet that night, she states there was nothing 'unusual'. Size 12 undies would most certainly be 'unusual' and I could see Patsy worrying about what people would think if they had helped JonBenet in the bathroom while she was wearing size 12 undies.

I can also see PR saying she didn't notice just to avoid lengthy questioning she knew wasn't going to go anywhere. At that point she knows no one can prove what JB had on at bedtime.

The undies were put on JonBenet after the assault. As to who did it. Someone who knew where to find them.

But how hard were they to find? If they were in the basement, unwrapped, they may have simply been seen w/o any extensive search. Thy may have been used because they were close at hand, and going back upstairs for a fresh pair may not have been an option for the re-re-dressing. (If there was a re-re-dressing)

On the other hand, if they were in JBs drawer, as claimed, then JB could have put them on herself.

 

[Tadpole12]

What eliminates the possibility that JBR redressed herself or BR helped her, using a pair of underware from the duplicate package located in the basement? The basement toilet remained unflushed? Is it solely the staging construct that eliminates this possibility?

 

[askfornina]

i'm very new to this case, sorry. wasn't there DNA found on the panties? what are the theories as to how that got there?

also, can anyone recommend a link to me while i can find a detailed outline of this case? i dunno where to start, so much info

 

[SunnieRN]

I can also see PR saying she didn't notice just to avoid lengthy questioning she knew wasn't going to go anywhere. At that point she knows no one can prove what JB had on at bedtime.



But how hard were they to find? If they were in the basement, unwrapped, they may have simply been seen w/o any extensive search. Thy may have been used because they were close at hand, and going back upstairs for a fresh pair may not have been an option for the re-re-dressing. (If there was a re-re-dressing)

On the other hand, if they were in JBs drawer, as claimed, then JB could have put them on herself.

I would think, that if Patsy had given the undies to JonBenet, like she said she did, that they would have been in the bathroom drawer, that held JonBenets undies. Very bad mistake to not cover your tracks and put the rest of the undies in JonBenets drawer, prior to telling that lie.

Since BPD emptied her underwear drawer, and found NO size 12's, that means someone forgot that last crucial step, which is why we are discussing Bloomies in the first place.

Also, if they were still in the basement that night, they would have been with the rest of Jenny's presents. Wrapped, so not so easy to find, if you don't know ahead of time where to look or what to look for.

Sorry, but Patsy got caught in a lie. John later backed her up. Someone either dressed or redressed JonBenet in those undies. Someone who knew WHERE they could be found. Or was told by someone who knew.

Another piece of testimony that bugs me is a statement made by John:

Q. (By Chief Beckner) Did you, the night of the 25th, did you help undress JonBenet?
A. I did. I think I was asked that before, but I don't -- I mean, I at least took her shoes off, I believe, later on. I carried her upstairs, laid her in bed, took her shoes off. I don't know if I took her coat off. Usually what I would do is try to get her semi-ready for bed because it wasn't infrequent she would fall to sleep when we came home like that, before we got home. Patsy would come in, get her in bed totally.
Q. I guess what I mean is, did you notice at that time whether she was or was not wearing underwear?
A. I mean, I think I would have noticed if she wasn't. But I don't remember. I really don't.
Q. Do you recall if you took her underwear off?
A. No, I'm sure I did not.

How would he know if she had undies on, if all he did was take off her shoes. He didn't even know if he took off her coat. This stinks as far as I am concerned. Also, to try and dis-spell the bed wetting=rage killing myth, Burke was also a bed wetter. If Patsy had been that worried about JonBenet wetting the bed that night, she would have woken her up to go potty, prior to letting her go back to sleep. Oh, yea, that's right, she wasn't asleep then, was she?! So why did John carry her upstairs and take off her shoes?

It reminds me of another recent case, where lie after lie, story after story is told. In the end, the only one who pays the price is the little girls, who should have been safe, surrounded by those who stated they loved them.

 

[Tadpole12]

and one more :crazy:

The Denver Post archive, another excellent resource, re the momentum of the case, the Ramseys defensive strategy and the infighting between the PBD and DA.

http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jonbenet.htm

 

[Chrishope]

What eliminates the possibility that JBR redressed herself or BR helped her, using a pair of underware from the duplicate package located in the basement? The basement toilet remained unflushed? Is it solely the staging construct that eliminates this possibility?

I guess nothing eliminates the possibility. I had always assumed she was dead, or nearly dead when the vaginal injuries were inflicted, but that's just an assumption.