True or False?
- Thread starter RedChief
- Start date
There were petechiae on JBR's neck, above and below the ligature?
These petechiae were caused by the pressure of the self-same ligature that was looped around the neck at the time the body was discovered--the one seen in the crime-scene photos?
Questions with respect to the above: is it possibly, or likely, that these petechiae developed during the period when the tissue of the neck swelled post mortem?
Is it possible, or likely, that these petechiae developed while something other than the aforementioned ligature was looped tightly around the neck--a precursory device?
These petechiae were caused by the pressure of the self-same ligature that was looped around the neck at the time the body was discovered--the one seen in the crime-scene photos?
Questions with respect to the above: is it possibly, or likely, that these petechiae developed during the period when the tissue of the neck swelled post mortem?
Is it possible, or likely, that these petechiae developed while something other than the aforementioned ligature was looped tightly around the neck--a precursory device?
There were several red areas of staining in the interior of the undies at the crotch?
There were no corresponding red areas in the pubic area?
There were dark fibers found in the folds of the labia and elsewhere in/on the pubic area?
There were dark fibers found adhering to the smears on the thighs?
Questions regarding the above: Assuming that the blood (the red areas) in the undies dripped there (post mortem?) from the vagina after the last wiping episode. Assume, further, that the lack of correspondence of blood in the pubic area to the red areas in the undies is of no great importance to the investigation. Who did the wiping and why? Was the child alive at the time?
Possibilities: (1.) A family member wiped the body to remove evidence of molestation, not realizing that there could be further bleeding. (2.) A stranger/intruder wiped the body to remove forensic evidence, and would not have cared about further bleeding (though perhaps he should have).
Questions regarding 1, above: why was she killed? Regarding 2, above: why did he change her undies?
There was an interesting scenario posed by the FBI (you have to use a little imagination): One family member caught another family member molesting JonBenet and swung at him with a bat, accidentally hitting JBR. These two family members realized she was mortally wounded and also realized that her two wounds (more about this later) would be impossible to explain to the authorities as anything even remotely resembling an innocent accident. So, they took the next step, and the next, and the next. Suspicion of incest in connection with the child's death, could deal a death blow to reputations and business careers. Whether incest was involved or not, keeping it under wraps can be a powerful motive for killing (or in this case, not requesting emergency assistance). The second wound was that of the injured genitalia. Either there was blood at that time or unmistakable evidence of molestation. The paintbrush (or whatever) may have been used in the staging to enhance the injury, once staging was elected. Of course, this doesn't explain why the body was cleansed in the first place. Will this fly?
If you suspect that a family member killed JonBenet, then you must think there was a powerful motive for doing so. What might that have been?
"There are two people who know who did this."
There were no corresponding red areas in the pubic area?
There were dark fibers found in the folds of the labia and elsewhere in/on the pubic area?
There were dark fibers found adhering to the smears on the thighs?
Questions regarding the above: Assuming that the blood (the red areas) in the undies dripped there (post mortem?) from the vagina after the last wiping episode. Assume, further, that the lack of correspondence of blood in the pubic area to the red areas in the undies is of no great importance to the investigation. Who did the wiping and why? Was the child alive at the time?
Possibilities: (1.) A family member wiped the body to remove evidence of molestation, not realizing that there could be further bleeding. (2.) A stranger/intruder wiped the body to remove forensic evidence, and would not have cared about further bleeding (though perhaps he should have).
Questions regarding 1, above: why was she killed? Regarding 2, above: why did he change her undies?
There was an interesting scenario posed by the FBI (you have to use a little imagination): One family member caught another family member molesting JonBenet and swung at him with a bat, accidentally hitting JBR. These two family members realized she was mortally wounded and also realized that her two wounds (more about this later) would be impossible to explain to the authorities as anything even remotely resembling an innocent accident. So, they took the next step, and the next, and the next. Suspicion of incest in connection with the child's death, could deal a death blow to reputations and business careers. Whether incest was involved or not, keeping it under wraps can be a powerful motive for killing (or in this case, not requesting emergency assistance). The second wound was that of the injured genitalia. Either there was blood at that time or unmistakable evidence of molestation. The paintbrush (or whatever) may have been used in the staging to enhance the injury, once staging was elected. Of course, this doesn't explain why the body was cleansed in the first place. Will this fly?
If you suspect that a family member killed JonBenet, then you must think there was a powerful motive for doing so. What might that have been?
"There are two people who know who did this."
Either she was naked and wearing no underwear or what she was wearing had forensic evidence on them and needed to be disposed of?
I dont think there are any clear cut answers here. You have to select the
interpretation which suits your favorite theory.
Some points to consider are:
The person who wiped her down may not be the same person who assaulted her sexually.
And the person who re-dressed her in her size-12 underwear may not be the same person who who assaulted her sexually.
Its entirely possible that she was wiped down with her modesty in mind, then again those dna markers BlueCrab mentions, place a different light on it.
What I am convinced of is that the wine-cellar scenario is mostly staging, and that prior to being re-located there, her body had been placed elsewhere and staged completely differently?
And that staging proceeded from the abandonded "kidnap and ransom" staging, which was likley preceded by an initial staging where ever she was originally killed e.g. her bedroom.
Which suggests the collusion of more than one or two people, and probably mixed motives.
Thats why I describe JonBenet's murder as a Staged Homicide!
I dont think there are any clear cut answers here. You have to select the
interpretation which suits your favorite theory.
Some points to consider are:
The person who wiped her down may not be the same person who assaulted her sexually.
And the person who re-dressed her in her size-12 underwear may not be the same person who who assaulted her sexually.
Its entirely possible that she was wiped down with her modesty in mind, then again those dna markers BlueCrab mentions, place a different light on it.
What I am convinced of is that the wine-cellar scenario is mostly staging, and that prior to being re-located there, her body had been placed elsewhere and staged completely differently?
And that staging proceeded from the abandonded "kidnap and ransom" staging, which was likley preceded by an initial staging where ever she was originally killed e.g. her bedroom.
Which suggests the collusion of more than one or two people, and probably mixed motives.
Thats why I describe JonBenet's murder as a Staged Homicide!
UKGuy said:
UKGuy,
I like your "double staging" scenario. It fits my "worst case" scenario of JonBenet being obscenely posed by the killer to send a sick political message, but when found later by the parents she was cut down, re-dressed, wrapped in a blanket, and re-posed to give her a measure of dignity in death.
BlueCrab
BlueCrab,BlueCrab said:
Thanks, yes something along the lines of what you suggest above could very well have taken place.
Not only does it fit the evidence it explains the staging, also some critical features match previous recorded homicides.
Whereas some other theories have holes that dont explain the staging, or lack credibility.
Some of JonBenet's "adequate size" undies-the size 6's, were of the day-of-the-week variety.
Question regarding the size 12's: Are we assuming (surmising) that these undies were installed on JonBenet that PM/AM because they were too big, or because they had been removed from that package of new bloomies in the bedroom from which no other undies had been removed, or both? Is there any other reason for surmising the aforementioned? Could this reason be that Patsy incorrectly informed her interviewer, Mr. Kane, about the size of the panties she normally purchased for JonBenet?
Question regarding the size 12's: Are we assuming (surmising) that these undies were installed on JonBenet that PM/AM because they were too big, or because they had been removed from that package of new bloomies in the bedroom from which no other undies had been removed, or both? Is there any other reason for surmising the aforementioned? Could this reason be that Patsy incorrectly informed her interviewer, Mr. Kane, about the size of the panties she normally purchased for JonBenet?
Jayelles
New Member
My five year old has the exact same Bloomies as JonBenet. She is only now growing into the size 4-6 although they are still a little on the generous side (they sit on her without being stretched if that makes sense). My little girl weighs 37lbs. She's slightly above average height, but she has a lean build. I imagine she's not far off the same build sa Jonbenet.RedChief said:
Perhaps this will give you some indication of how the Bloomies were for a fit.
RedChief said:
RedChief,
I have a tough time trying to figure out what your question is. So please just let me say this:
IMO Patsy knows very well that in the past she has bought only size 4 and size 6 panties for JonBenet. And size 4 and size 6 panties were the only sizes the cops found in JonBenet's underwear drawer. So Patsy lied.
So why did Patsy lie by saying she normally bought size 8 to 10 for JonBenet when there weren't even any size 8's or 10's in the house -- there were just 4's and 6's?
IMO here's why: Patsy knew that JonBenet was found dead wearing size 12/14 underwear, a size for a girl twice the size of JonBenet. It was evidence that she had been cleaned up and re-dressed after death by someone who didn't know what they were doing -- such as a 9-year-old boy.
To help deflect suspicion from Burke, Patsy wanted the size of JonBenet's underwear she normally wore to be as close to size 12/14 as possible. That's why Patsy lied and said 8 to 10, when she knew the only sizes she had ever bought for JonBenet were sizes 4 and 6.
Patsy wants the cops to believe that JonBenet opened the package of 12/14's and put them on herself. But size 12/14 underwear would have likely fallen down into JonBenet's pantlegs had she tried to walk.
It was just one more obvious Ramsey lie, of dozens, to try to distance Burke from the crime. Burke is involved somehow in this crime and the parents have been lying their heads off and doing their best to cover it up.
BlueCrab
BlueCrab:
Just have to agree with most of what you post. If you read and contrast the transcripts, it jumps out at you that, at a minimum, Patsy is being evasive.
Dont forget we can test for when they were placed on her e.g. 25th or 26th since they will have black velvet fibers on them if they were worn to the White's party.
If they were clean on, then where are her old size-6 underwear? these will have black velvet fibers on them along with forensic evidence. When asked about JonBenet's changing routine Patsy replied she usually just dropped clothes where she disrobed. But these pants are nowhere to be found?
Why was she found in the Wine-Cellar still wearing all her jewellry, but no socks?
Also what we dont know is was there a Day Of The Week Pair amongst the size-6's that had "Wednesday" stamped on them?
And just to reinforce BlueCrab's reference to someone unversed in JonBenet's dressing preferences or even Patsy's, since whoever was preparing the staging in the Wine-Cellar decided to use JonBenet's Barbie Gown to suggest an abduction from her bed, but just like her underwear, whilst they never got it 100% wrong. Patsy is on record as stating she wore the pink nightgown the previous night that was under her pillow and it would have been the nightgown of choice.
Just have to agree with most of what you post. If you read and contrast the transcripts, it jumps out at you that, at a minimum, Patsy is being evasive.
Dont forget we can test for when they were placed on her e.g. 25th or 26th since they will have black velvet fibers on them if they were worn to the White's party.
If they were clean on, then where are her old size-6 underwear? these will have black velvet fibers on them along with forensic evidence. When asked about JonBenet's changing routine Patsy replied she usually just dropped clothes where she disrobed. But these pants are nowhere to be found?
Why was she found in the Wine-Cellar still wearing all her jewellry, but no socks?
Also what we dont know is was there a Day Of The Week Pair amongst the size-6's that had "Wednesday" stamped on them?
And just to reinforce BlueCrab's reference to someone unversed in JonBenet's dressing preferences or even Patsy's, since whoever was preparing the staging in the Wine-Cellar decided to use JonBenet's Barbie Gown to suggest an abduction from her bed, but just like her underwear, whilst they never got it 100% wrong. Patsy is on record as stating she wore the pink nightgown the previous night that was under her pillow and it would have been the nightgown of choice.
Jayelles said:
Jayelles,
Thank you for the information. Your five-yr-old would be about 1 year younger than JBR was? Just roughly. I think JBR's birthday was in early August, so she was about 6 years and 4 months. She weighed 45 lb and was 4 feet tall, medium build?
The sizes are age groupings (spans)? 4-6 means from 4 to 6 years of age?
So Patsy's remark about undies of the sort we're discussing here, being commercially available in sizes small, medium and large is incorrect? Doesn't sound correct. I'd think the age group would be an essential specification. And what are the standard sizes for children between the ages of 4 and 14?
Just so we're clear. Thank you.
Question regarding the size 12's: Is it because (1.) they were too big for her that we are surmising that someone other than JonBenet or her mother dressed JonBenet in those undies at some point (in time) after she returned home from the Whites' on the evening of December 25, 1996 and before she was found dead, or because (2.) they had apparently been removed from that package of new bloomies in the bedroom from which no other undies had been removed, or (3.) both? Is there any other reason (beyond the two just mentioned) for surmising that someone other than JonBenet or her mother had dressed her in those undies during the period (of time) aforementioned? Could this reason be that Patsy incorrectly informed her interviewer, Mr. Kane, about the size of the panties she normally purchased for JonBenet?
Ok, well, here're some questions about Burke and his possible involvement in the death of his sister and/or his possible knowledge of the events leading to the death of his sister:
Burke was interviewed by LE (or at LE's behest) how many times?
During any of those interviews were the parents present (in the same room)?
During any of those interviews were legal council present (in the same room)?
During any of those interviews was anyone present in the same room to unlawfully influence his testimony in any way?
Prior and pursuant to those interviews, were there any restrictions placed on the questions put to Burke; i.e., any conditions agreed to before hand by LE and Burke's attorneys or parents or Burke himself, with respect to his testimony?
Do you consider it true that the parents provided LE access to Burke far and beyond any that either of them allowed for themselves? And, if so, could you not surmise that neither John nor Patsy were concerned about what Burke might say in regard to the events of the evening of December 25, 1996; to wit, those culminating in the death of JonBenet?
Do you consider it a fact that Alex Hunter publicly stated that Burke was not a suspect nor a person of interest in the case?
And finally, do you believe that if Burke were involved at any level, however minor, in the death of his sister, or had any information, however indirect, that he would be able to keep knowledge of his involvement and/or this information to himself all these years?
Burke was interviewed by LE (or at LE's behest) how many times?
During any of those interviews were the parents present (in the same room)?
During any of those interviews were legal council present (in the same room)?
During any of those interviews was anyone present in the same room to unlawfully influence his testimony in any way?
Prior and pursuant to those interviews, were there any restrictions placed on the questions put to Burke; i.e., any conditions agreed to before hand by LE and Burke's attorneys or parents or Burke himself, with respect to his testimony?
Do you consider it true that the parents provided LE access to Burke far and beyond any that either of them allowed for themselves? And, if so, could you not surmise that neither John nor Patsy were concerned about what Burke might say in regard to the events of the evening of December 25, 1996; to wit, those culminating in the death of JonBenet?
Do you consider it a fact that Alex Hunter publicly stated that Burke was not a suspect nor a person of interest in the case?
And finally, do you believe that if Burke were involved at any level, however minor, in the death of his sister, or had any information, however indirect, that he would be able to keep knowledge of his involvement and/or this information to himself all these years?
UKGuy--"...but these pants were nowhere to be found?"
I assume you're referring to the size 4-6 undies. You don't suppose the perp took them with him as a souvenir?
UKGuy--"these will have black velvet fibers on them along with forensic evidence."
I assume by forensic evidence you mean DNA and stuff. You wouldn't consider the fibers forensic evidence?
UKGuy--"Why was she found in the Wine Cellar still wearing all her jewellry, but no socks?"
The socks. The socks! Is there a law against wearing jewelry to bed? Is there a law against having one's hair up in pony tails while sleeping? Didn't the Ramseys say they put her to bed before she awoke and gently so as not to awaken her? Similarly is there a law against removing one's socks either before or after one climbs into bed? After all, you don't suppose they were glued on, do ya? The Ramseys didn't say they didn't remove her socks, did they? John couldn't remember whether he removed her shoes or her coat. For that matter, how do ya know she was even wearing socks?
BTW, before I forget, Patsy said the Barbie gown in the WC was not the Barbie gown she usually wore; I should think you'd be emphasizing this strenuously--more evidence of the "fact" that the perp wasn't well versed.
UKGuy--"Also what we dont know is was there a Day Of The Week Pair amongst the size-6's that had "Wednesday" stamped on them?"
Maybe we do know; didn't Patsy imply that some of JonBenet's "adequate size" undies were DOW?
UKGuy--"Patsy is on record as stating she wore the pink nightgown the previous night that was under her pillow and it would have been the nightgown of choice."
Regarding the perp being unversed in JonBenet's dressing preferences: Especially Burke, her brother, with whom she slept on occasion and had been a sister to for 6+ years; he would be especially unversed, huh? Now, you propose that the items in the wine cellar are suggestive of a bedroom abduction, and that the Barbie gown, though bedroom apparel, and available to the child for sleeping (bedroom) and other purposes, was THE wrong apparel, because THE right apparel was readily available (though under her pillow and out of sight--one reason Patsy gave for not installing it), and would therefore have been more convincing as a staging item. BTW, the item on the bed (under the pillow) was not a gown. If you see something in a scene that isn't convincing as a staging item, maybe that's because it isn't a staging item. You conclude, therefore, that the alleged wine cellar staging was conducted by amateurs who were clever enough to realize they'd need convincing props but not knowledgable enough about JonBenet's dressing preferences (which were rigid as pot metal) to select the right ones. Those idiots!
I assume you're referring to the size 4-6 undies. You don't suppose the perp took them with him as a souvenir?
UKGuy--"these will have black velvet fibers on them along with forensic evidence."
I assume by forensic evidence you mean DNA and stuff. You wouldn't consider the fibers forensic evidence?
UKGuy--"Why was she found in the Wine Cellar still wearing all her jewellry, but no socks?"
The socks. The socks! Is there a law against wearing jewelry to bed? Is there a law against having one's hair up in pony tails while sleeping? Didn't the Ramseys say they put her to bed before she awoke and gently so as not to awaken her? Similarly is there a law against removing one's socks either before or after one climbs into bed? After all, you don't suppose they were glued on, do ya? The Ramseys didn't say they didn't remove her socks, did they? John couldn't remember whether he removed her shoes or her coat. For that matter, how do ya know she was even wearing socks?
BTW, before I forget, Patsy said the Barbie gown in the WC was not the Barbie gown she usually wore; I should think you'd be emphasizing this strenuously--more evidence of the "fact" that the perp wasn't well versed.
UKGuy--"Also what we dont know is was there a Day Of The Week Pair amongst the size-6's that had "Wednesday" stamped on them?"
Maybe we do know; didn't Patsy imply that some of JonBenet's "adequate size" undies were DOW?
UKGuy--"Patsy is on record as stating she wore the pink nightgown the previous night that was under her pillow and it would have been the nightgown of choice."
Regarding the perp being unversed in JonBenet's dressing preferences: Especially Burke, her brother, with whom she slept on occasion and had been a sister to for 6+ years; he would be especially unversed, huh? Now, you propose that the items in the wine cellar are suggestive of a bedroom abduction, and that the Barbie gown, though bedroom apparel, and available to the child for sleeping (bedroom) and other purposes, was THE wrong apparel, because THE right apparel was readily available (though under her pillow and out of sight--one reason Patsy gave for not installing it), and would therefore have been more convincing as a staging item. BTW, the item on the bed (under the pillow) was not a gown. If you see something in a scene that isn't convincing as a staging item, maybe that's because it isn't a staging item. You conclude, therefore, that the alleged wine cellar staging was conducted by amateurs who were clever enough to realize they'd need convincing props but not knowledgable enough about JonBenet's dressing preferences (which were rigid as pot metal) to select the right ones. Those idiots!
Patsy purchased the size 12-14 day-of-the-week (DOW) "bloomies" from Bloomingdales.
Patsy purchased two packages--one for her niece and one for JonBenet.
Both packages contained underwear of the same size.
One package contained size 12-14; the other contained size 4-6.
Bloomingdales continues to sell "bloomies" panties for children.
Bloomingdales has discontinued the sale of "bloomies" panties for children.
Bloomingdales does not currently sell panties of any size, shape or description for children.
Bloomingdales NEVER did sell "bloomies" panties for children.
Bloomingdales sells a few "bloomies" products including a nightshirt for young women and a few products for infants and toddlers.
Questions and comments regarding the above: "Bloomies" is a logo or registered trademark. Not all items sold at Bloomingdales are "Bloomies", in fact they sell few such items. They don't cater to children one iota. Also, it is improper and incorrect to refer to any or all underwear or sleepwear sold by Bloomingdales as "Bloomies". So, how did this term originate with respect to the underwear Patsy claims to have purchased from Bloomingdales in the fall of '96? She may have purchased childrens' underwear there, but were they "bloomies"? If they were "bloomies" they'd have the logo, "bloomies", printed on them or sewn into them.
Which would be more noticeable to the untrained eye as a feature of the underwear--a floral pattern (printed rosebuds) or "Wednesday" printed on the elastic wasteband? Well, I guess it'd depend on the size, color and location of the lettering, and the size, density and location of the rosebuds. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the floral pattern would be more quickly and easily discerned than the lettering. So, if you were choosing a proper substitue for the alleged "adequate size" panties (in need of changing), would you be more inclined to choose panties that had similar (if not identical) floral pattern (the rosebuds) or panties that had "Wednesday" printed on the waistband? Of course, if you could choose panties that fulfilled both requirements, wouldn't that be grand. But, if it's the floral pattern that you've noticed, and you want to find replacements that are a match in that respect, you don't go looking for Wednesdays. You grab the first pair of rosebuds that you encounter in the "bloomie" bag. After all, they are all printed with rosebuds, aren't they? Gee, what if they aren't! What if only the Wednesdays are rosedbuds. Do we know this?
From PMPT, paperback, pg 3 (not numbered): "Do roses know their thorns can hurt?" JonBenet asked me that one morning. I was the landscaper at the Ramseys' home during the last two years of her life, and it was the kind of question I'd learned to expect from her."--Brian Scott
Patsy purchased two packages--one for her niece and one for JonBenet.
Both packages contained underwear of the same size.
One package contained size 12-14; the other contained size 4-6.
Bloomingdales continues to sell "bloomies" panties for children.
Bloomingdales has discontinued the sale of "bloomies" panties for children.
Bloomingdales does not currently sell panties of any size, shape or description for children.
Bloomingdales NEVER did sell "bloomies" panties for children.
Bloomingdales sells a few "bloomies" products including a nightshirt for young women and a few products for infants and toddlers.
Questions and comments regarding the above: "Bloomies" is a logo or registered trademark. Not all items sold at Bloomingdales are "Bloomies", in fact they sell few such items. They don't cater to children one iota. Also, it is improper and incorrect to refer to any or all underwear or sleepwear sold by Bloomingdales as "Bloomies". So, how did this term originate with respect to the underwear Patsy claims to have purchased from Bloomingdales in the fall of '96? She may have purchased childrens' underwear there, but were they "bloomies"? If they were "bloomies" they'd have the logo, "bloomies", printed on them or sewn into them.
Which would be more noticeable to the untrained eye as a feature of the underwear--a floral pattern (printed rosebuds) or "Wednesday" printed on the elastic wasteband? Well, I guess it'd depend on the size, color and location of the lettering, and the size, density and location of the rosebuds. If I had to guess, I'd guess that the floral pattern would be more quickly and easily discerned than the lettering. So, if you were choosing a proper substitue for the alleged "adequate size" panties (in need of changing), would you be more inclined to choose panties that had similar (if not identical) floral pattern (the rosebuds) or panties that had "Wednesday" printed on the waistband? Of course, if you could choose panties that fulfilled both requirements, wouldn't that be grand. But, if it's the floral pattern that you've noticed, and you want to find replacements that are a match in that respect, you don't go looking for Wednesdays. You grab the first pair of rosebuds that you encounter in the "bloomie" bag. After all, they are all printed with rosebuds, aren't they? Gee, what if they aren't! What if only the Wednesdays are rosedbuds. Do we know this?
From PMPT, paperback, pg 3 (not numbered): "Do roses know their thorns can hurt?" JonBenet asked me that one morning. I was the landscaper at the Ramseys' home during the last two years of her life, and it was the kind of question I'd learned to expect from her."--Brian Scott
Can we get a thread on JBR's clothing started so we can contain all the posts there?
As I posted somewhere else (don't remember where now LOL), I think a mother would not hurriedly or otherwise grab a pair of size 12 panties, if that child wore a size 6. Just not something a mom would do. I could see a dad, or brother, or another male (sorry guys, for the stereotyping here) doing this, however. She was wearing a pair of rosebud panties with Wednesday on them, and lo and behold, there's another pair just like them in the drawer. What luck! Grab them and put them on. Doesn't matter if they fit or not.. Don't even know if they "fit" or not because they go on her easily enough. Bingo!
The gardener is someone I would like to know more about. He's always been of interest to me.
As I posted somewhere else (don't remember where now LOL), I think a mother would not hurriedly or otherwise grab a pair of size 12 panties, if that child wore a size 6. Just not something a mom would do. I could see a dad, or brother, or another male (sorry guys, for the stereotyping here) doing this, however. She was wearing a pair of rosebud panties with Wednesday on them, and lo and behold, there's another pair just like them in the drawer. What luck! Grab them and put them on. Doesn't matter if they fit or not.. Don't even know if they "fit" or not because they go on her easily enough. Bingo!
The gardener is someone I would like to know more about. He's always been of interest to me.
Children can learn to associate the day of the week to the picture or pattern on the underwear.
Bloomies is Patsy's phrase, so she may just mean a generic underwear style, or she may be deliberately misleading, who knows, I forget if she had reciepts etc or if she paid by credit card or whatever.
She purchased size-12 underwear for her relative somewhere and they ended upon JonBenet.
So what you derive from all those statements about the underwear ?
One aspect that is difficult to reconcile is if there is serious staging involved why does it appear to be so ad-hoc, so much so, we can just about see it as staging e.g. the size-12 underwear , her ponytails, her barbie gown etc, possibly her jewellry, the placement in the wine-cellar ....
Bloomies is Patsy's phrase, so she may just mean a generic underwear style, or she may be deliberately misleading, who knows, I forget if she had reciepts etc or if she paid by credit card or whatever.
She purchased size-12 underwear for her relative somewhere and they ended upon JonBenet.
So what you derive from all those statements about the underwear ?
One aspect that is difficult to reconcile is if there is serious staging involved why does it appear to be so ad-hoc, so much so, we can just about see it as staging e.g. the size-12 underwear , her ponytails, her barbie gown etc, possibly her jewellry, the placement in the wine-cellar ....
Similar threads
Staff online
-
friendlysleutherModerator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 107
- Guests online
- 2,495
- Total visitors
- 2,602