The Turtleneck Theory

PR also said there should have been a top sheet.... So, where did the top sheet go?

Yes, I suspect the cover was pulled back and up, probably when they were looking for her initially. More than likely by the Rs then by the cops. I don't think how the bed is pictured there is how it was found first thing.

There was a top and bottom sheet in the search warrant lists I think.
 
Yes, I suspect the cover was pulled back and up, probably when they were looking for her initially. More than likely by the Rs then by the cops. I don't think how the bed is pictured there is how it was found first thing.

There was a top and bottom sheet in the search warrant lists I think.


Murri,

On this we agree, I'm not sure thats the original photo. In the photos of JB room, there is a nightstand, and on that nightstand is the potholder maker thing PR talks about in her police interview, she is shown a picture of JBs bed and notices that potholder thing on the bed, not on the nightstand.
 
The blanket she was wrapped in was off her bed. Notice no blanket on the bed?
picture.php
How do you know it was off of her bed? Do you think PR took it out of the dryer and then put it under the comforter? The end of the bed looks made. It doesn't look like a blanket was pulled out. It could have been, I guess, if it hadn't been tucked in well... but the end of the bed looks made. What was the comforter made of? A lot of people sleep with just a comforter over them. Curious.
 
Murri,

On this we agree, I'm not sure thats the original photo. In the photos of JB room, there is a nightstand, and on that nightstand is the potholder maker thing PR talks about in her police interview, she is shown a picture of JBs bed and notices that potholder thing on the bed, not on the nightstand.

Remember the other bedroom picture with the 'object' reflected in the mirror that none of us could identify? Looks like the bed was disturbed in between these two shots, but not sure which would be the earliest. Either way, it was probably also disturbed at least twice before any pictures were taken. Wouldn't surprise me if the bedclothes were stripped back over that trunk thing at the end of the bed, then pulled back over when they were looking for her.
 
Remember the other bedroom picture with the 'object' reflected in the mirror that none of us could identify? Looks like the bed was disturbed in between these two shots, but not sure which would be the earliest. Either way, it was probably also disturbed at least twice before any pictures were taken. Wouldn't surprise me if the bedclothes were stripped back over that trunk thing at the end of the bed, then pulled back over when they were looking for her.



The thing that we have too remember are the different sets of photos taken that day. There were photos labeled "kidnapping phase" and then those taken after JBs body was found. We have to ask ourselves at this point, what phase were they in when the photo we see, was taken?
 
Also at one point John Ramsey was in the room, lifting up the beds dust ruffle and kneeling on the ground.

2000 March 18 John and Patsy Ramsey book, "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 13:

"For the first time I am aware that I have been racing around the house in my underwear. I hurry back to the third floor bedroom to grab my clothes. I stop in JonBenet's room and look under the bed to make sure she isn't there."

"Standing alone in the bedroom, feeling as if I had been kicked in the stomach by a Clydesdale horse, I wring my hands in anguish and stare at the wall. I force myself to get my wits about me"

"I put on pants and a shirt, and hurry back downstairs."


He did a lot between the time 911 was called and the BPD arrived! Evidence could have been destroyed in JonBenets room prior to police even arriving. This statement could lend reasonable doubt if any dna evidence exists from JonBenets bedroom.
 
Also at one point John Ramsey was in the room, lifting up the beds dust ruffle and kneeling on the ground.

2000 March 18 John and Patsy Ramsey book, "Death of Innocence"

DOI (HB) Page 13:

"For the first time I am aware that I have been racing around the house in my underwear. I hurry back to the third floor bedroom to grab my clothes. I stop in JonBenet's room and look under the bed to make sure she isn't there."

"Standing alone in the bedroom, feeling as if I had been kicked in the stomach by a Clydesdale horse, I wring my hands in anguish and stare at the wall. I force myself to get my wits about me"

"I put on pants and a shirt, and hurry back downstairs."


He did a lot between the time 911 was called and the BPD arrived! Evidence could have been destroyed in JonBenets room prior to police even arriving. This statement could lend reasonable doubt if any dna evidence exists from JonBenets bedroom.

my bold

What doubt exactly? As far as we know there was no DNA evidence there, but even if there was/is, what would JR being in this room in his own house have to do with doubt about any unidentified DNA?
 
my bold

What doubt exactly? As far as we know there was no DNA evidence there, but even if there was/is, what would JR being in this room in his own house have to do with doubt about any unidentified DNA?

How do we know if he touched the bed, moved anything on or under the bed? Did he touch the bed while getting up or down from a kneeling position? If an intruder took JonBenet from her bed, did he touch the bed. Did he walk where John stood than kneeled? Do we know if JonBenets sheets were tested for DNA? What about touch DNA? If an intruder left touch dna on the long johns, why not JonBenets sheets? Touch dna could have been compromised on the long johns, but if it was found and matched on the sheets, JonBenets shirt, her door, the wine cellar door and the ransom note, I would think there was something to it. You notice, John managed to have an excuse for his dna being everywhere JonBenet was that night/day, while accomplishing contaminating areas that contained or could have contained evidence.
 
How do you know it was off of her bed? Do you think PR took it out of the dryer and then put it under the comforter? The end of the bed looks made. It doesn't look like a blanket was pulled out. It could have been, I guess, if it hadn't been tucked in well... but the end of the bed looks made. What was the comforter made of? A lot of people sleep with just a comforter over them. Curious.

Police discussed this VERY thing with Patsy. They showed her photos, and after a while she admitted that the bed looked as if no blanket had been pulled off. There was no way to do that and have the foot section remain made. I think what happened was this:
Housekeeper LHP had last changed JB's sheets (including laundering them) on Dec. 23. When shown photos of JB's bed by LE, she said that the sheets on the bed were not the ones she remembered putting on that day. She had also told LE that JN wet the bed most nights. She also said that the blanket did not fit in the small washer/dryer outside JB's bedroom, but was always washed in the basement laundry area because the machines were larger.
I think that LHP laundered that white blanket when she was last there, and the white blanket had been in the basement dryer (where LHP put it) all along. LHP was not at the R home on Dec. 24, 25. But JB likely wet the bed. So I believe Patsy changed the sheets herself (most kids have a few sets) but did NOT go down to the basement to get the blanket, making up the bed without the blanket. She was busy, with the party, Christmas Eve - you know what that is like with small kids)- gone all afternoon at the White's, packing for the trips, etc. She may have even skipped putting back a top sheet. My daughter does the same thing when she has to change her kids' beds late at night or if she is in a rush. Some kids don't even use top sheets. (those footie pjs are warm)
Besides, JR told LE that JB's room was warm, sometimes TOO warm, and it would have been no big deal to sleep with just the sheets and bedspread. Besides, LHP was due to come right after they left and she'd make the bed up fresh with the clean blanket.
That's why the blanket was handy in the basement, and the only people who would know it was dried there (and not in the obvious place right outside the bedroom) was Patsy, maybe JR, and LHP. NO SFF. No pedophile killer. No disgruntled employee. This was the kind of knowledge of the personal routines of the household that no outsider would know.
 
Dee Dee, thank you for the information. I had no idea that the blanket was washed in the basement each time. What a pain that would have been!
 
Dee Dee, thank you for the information. I had no idea that the blanket was washed in the basement each time. What a pain that would have been!

Not for Patsy- it was her housekeeper who did the laundry!
 
I have to believe that the most important part of John's statement was that he looked under the bed while still in his underwear. If he had been in JB's room during the night, lots of evidence could have been there. He needed an explanation for that evidence. Why else would he have stated that he only wore his underwear?
 
How do we know if he touched the bed, moved anything on or under the bed? Did he touch the bed while getting up or down from a kneeling position? If an intruder took JonBenet from her bed, did he touch the bed. Did he walk where John stood than kneeled? Do we know if JonBenets sheets were tested for DNA? What about touch DNA? If an intruder left touch dna on the long johns, why not JonBenets sheets? Touch dna could have been compromised on the long johns, but if it was found and matched on the sheets, JonBenets shirt, her door, the wine cellar door and the ransom note, I would think there was something to it. You notice, John managed to have an excuse for his dna being everywhere JonBenet was that night/day, while accomplishing contaminating areas that contained or could have contained evidence.



The only place tested for touch DNA was either side of the longjohns, and VOILA!! People who have rational thought processes would not be looking for innocent excuses for the touch DNA found on the longjohnns, this would be enough to demonstrate that an intruder was in fact involved in the crime. It is only RDI on these forums that seem to question it. If they had the time and money to test everything likely to have been touched by the IDI and found more unidentified male DNA, would you then be satisfied??

JR did not need an excuse for his DNA being in his house or on his daughter because he was her father and lived in the house. If he contaminated areas or destroyed evidence in his search for her, then that was understandable. Even I would have been suspicious if he had just sat in the kitchen and not tried to find her.
 
Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front.

Two possible pieces of evidence and IDI throws away the other 2000 or so pieces, they already know what the picture is.... Nice work, lets wrap it up and go home!
 
Imagine spilling out a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle on a table in front of you. Find two red pieces and match them together. Throw out the other 498 pieces and tell yourself, "I don't need to finish this, I know what it is, it's a picture of an apple!" When, in fact, the picture was a large, red, barn with horses out front.

Two possible pieces of evidence and IDI throws away the other 2000 or so pieces, they already know what the picture is.... Nice work, lets wrap it up and go home!

Well, I don't think it was 'us' who decided this evidence was sufficient, it was LE. You know, the ones who decide these things?
 
I've thought the dryer was the most likely spot for that blanket and I agree JB's bed doesn't seem likely because why would PR take it out of the dryer and then put it under the bedspread when they were going to be leaving?

But you've got me thinking... are we missing any other logical possibilities? What day did the housekeeper say she saw it there? PR was packing for a trip. Wasn't that JB's favorite? Maybe PR had PACKED it for the trip. They had a private plane and often went in their jammies. Isn't it likely that blanket might have been packed for the trip or set on top of luggage to be ready to grab in the morning? Where was all of their luggage that night, anyone know? I know JR said he pre-loaded gifts in the plane the day before but they had to have had luggage in the house almost ready to go.

The plane was packed on Christmas by John. The bags at home that were packed were for the Disney cruise. I would think that if they were planning on bringing JonBenet in her blanket it would have been handy at the end of her bed.
 
Well, I don't think it was 'us' who decided this evidence was sufficient, it was LE. You know, the ones who decide these things?





Murri, that made about as much sense as kicking a fresh dog turd on a hot day.... Go ahead, blame it on the guys that would have put the Rs in prison if they had had the decision....
 
Thanks, I owe it all too the years I spent in charm school....
 
The only place tested for touch DNA was either side of the longjohns, and VOILA!! People who have rational thought processes would not be looking for innocent excuses for the touch DNA found on the longjohnns, this would be enough to demonstrate that an intruder was in fact involved in the crime. It is only RDI on these forums that seem to question it. If they had the time and money to test everything likely to have been touched by the IDI and found more unidentified male DNA, would you then be satisfied??

JR did not need an excuse for his DNA being in his house or on his daughter because he was her father and lived in the house. If he contaminated areas or destroyed evidence in his search for her, then that was understandable. Even I would have been suspicious if he had just sat in the kitchen and not tried to find her.

Why were the sides of the long johns the only place tested for DNA. Remember your post, not wanting to blame anyone for their mistakes, but just wanting to solve the case? Don't you think if ML had the sheets, the blanket, JonBenet's top, her door, the wine cellar door tested, there may have been more touch DNA found? Some doors were taken by police, I just don't know which.

Would I then be more satisfied? If all these items were found with the same DNA I would at least have reasonable doubt.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
529
Total visitors
677

Forum statistics

Threads
625,566
Messages
18,506,318
Members
240,817
Latest member
chalise
Back
Top