True or False?

[UKGuy]

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.

I dont think we know if the size-6 pair we assume she wore, was a wednesday or rosebud motif, they are missing.

Whats important is establishing if there is staging in the wine-cellar, which is what it appears to be, a quick fiber analysis of those size-12 underwear will establish it either way. Well in the panic of staging a homicide, its possible any "correct" day of the week underwear might do?

 

[Nehemiah]

I dont think we know if the size-6 pair we assume she wore, was a wednesday or rosebud motif, they are missing.

Correct, we don't know.

 

[RedChief]

I dont think we know if the size-6 pair we assume she wore, was a wednesday or rosebud motif, they are missing.

Whats important is establishing if there is staging in the wine-cellar, which is what it appears to be, a quick fiber analysis of those size-12 underwear will establish it either way. Well in the panic of staging a homicide, its possible any "correct" day of the week underwear might do?

Yes, staging in the wine cellar. Please list each and EVERY aspect of the wine cellar scene that makes you suspect staging. One more time.

Yes, we don't know if the 4-6's are Wednesday, nor do we know if they are rosebud motif, nor do we know whether all the panties are rosebuds or just the Wednesdays, nor that there were any panties besides the big ones that were either rosebud or Wednesday. Your observation that the motif would help a little girl who couldn't read, to select the correct panties, was astute. It would certainly be helpful to our analysis if we could know all about the discarded underwear.

OK, we're staging a homicide: it's possible any correct DOW underwear might do; that would depend on the staging objective (what the perp wants someone to think) and the proficiency and/or cleverness of the stager. Even clever stagers sometimes make mistakes; that's how they get caught. Example: maybe it's just important that she be wearing panties, period. Since we dont know what "this" stager wants us (if anything) to think, but we surmise that he wants SOMEONE to think she's been abducted from the bedroom (that would fit with what the Ramseys have told us--that JB was asleep when carried up to her bedroom, and asleep when they exited her room for the last time that night, circa 10 PM--and this may or may not be true), what might we expect "him" to do with regard to the undies? Won't he want to fool SOMEONE (who might that be?) by putting new panties on her that are identical in all respects to the old ones? Recall that we don't know what she wore to bed; we haven't a clue; but SOMEONE does. But, yes, he might be in a hurry and not thinking clearly. So, what are his options? He can't find little bloomers that match her "dirty" ones (this reinforces my suspicion that only the rosebuds are Wednesdays), so he utilizes the big ones. He finds Wednesday rosebuds (recall that there may be no other underwear with the same motif) and dresses her with those. If any old bloomers will do, why not opt for a size 4-6? Lots of those in her bathroom. But, the question lingers, does he select those big ones because of the rosebuds, or because of the day of the week? What would be the point in selecting DOW if that is a non-significant feature of the underwear? Wouldn't you think a considerably more significant feature would be the rosebuds? Might he not want panties that LOOK a lot like the panties he's replacing? You have to look closely to see the Wednesday (I assume) on the waistband; I'm guessing you can see the rosebuds from two blocks away. I have to guess it is the rosebuds that attracted him to the Wednesdays and not the other way 'round. But, again, who is he staging this scene for? For you? For me? For Lou Smit? No. He's staging it for SOMEONE else. Who?

PS: We're assuming that the missing undies were either Wednesdays or rosebuds. What if they were neither? Now, here's something to consider: if the perp/stager were unconcerned with JB's dignity, why would he bother to replace her panties in the first place? If the perp/stager is a family member, and you suspect the garotte is staging (albeit contributing to her death), why is she wearing panties, or even longjohns? Because as you have surmised, a bloody, pantiless corpse isn't dignified insofar as this perp is concerned. One more thing: Who knows better than one or both of the Ramsey parents WHEN JB went to bed (was supposed to go to bed) and WHAT she was wearing (underwear) when her slacks were removed and her longjohns were put on? Someone is trying to fool someone. Who is trying to fool whom? What we need to do is pick out the salient features of this crime scene--the major dots--and connect them together. But, you knew this. What would be ideal from the stagers point of view, is a perfect correlation between the wine cellar and the bedroom. So, what is imperfect about it? Well, the hair ties for one; and............

Someone knows that someone knows when JB went to bed AND how she was dressed.

 

[Catfish]

and............ Someone knows that someone knows when JB went to bed AND how she was dressed.

Hi RedChief,

Excellent intriguing questions and comments.

Let's see if I follow your comment. JonBenet arises Christmas day, opens her presents, eats breakfast, plays with toys, and later dresses for the White's Christmas party. So far as we know, only Patsy would know which pair of underpants JonBenet was wearing when she went to the White's (there was a disagreement between Patsy and JonBenet over which clothing to wear that evening) and again, when Patsy redressed JonBenet for bed (for the moment, let's ignore the police logs quoting John as saying he put her to bed ).

Are you are hinting that the perp may have been concerned that Patsy would recall which style of undies JonBenet had on when she went to bed and therefore, he/she felt they had to replace them with a pair that matched?

Perp accidently/purposefully kills JonBenet and, for reasons still being debated, wants/needs to change JonBenet's underwear. However, the perp is concerned that replacing the "soiled" underpants might be noticed by Patsy if the fresh pair do not match the "soiled" pair to be replaced. So the perp searches the underwear drawer and only finding a match in an unopened package, opens the package and puts on a "matching pair," possibly not noticing they are much too large. This way, the perp figures, Patsy won't notice the switch.

If I may digress.... JonBenet is dead. Patsy and the family will notice that. The perp left a "ransom note." The family will notice that. JonBenet has/might have been sexually molested. The coroner will discover that, if molestation did indeed happen.

I'm not trying to be frivolous here. Why would the perp be concerned about replacing one pair of underpants with a matching pair, given everything else he/she left behind, including a dead child and a "ransom note?" Once the perp has killed JonBenet and has made the decisions as to how the body is to be left in the wine room, why does the style of underpants matter? If Patsy was solely responsible for this, was she concerned that someone else knew what JonBenet was wearing earlier? Or if someone other than Patsy is responsible, was the perp concerned that Patsy would notice JonBenet was wearing a different style of underwear and, if so, why would the killer care? After killing a child, wouldn't matching the underwear be trivial?

I'm beginning to suspect that focusing on the size 10-12 underwear is a red herring.

It may be as simple as this: it was Christmas day, a day of opening presents- of opening new packages. A little girl is getting dressed for Christmas dinner that evening. She opens one more new package that Christmas day - a package of underwear and puts on a new pair of underwear.

 

[RedChief]

Hi RedChief,

Excellent intriguing questions and comments.

Let's see if I follow your comment. JonBenet arises Christmas day, opens her presents, eats breakfast, plays with toys, and later dresses for the White's Christmas party. So far as we know, only Patsy would know which pair of underpants JonBenet was wearing when she went to the White's (there was a disagreement between Patsy and JonBenet over which clothing to wear that evening) and again, when Patsy redressed JonBenet for bed (for the moment, let's ignore the police logs quoting John as saying he put her to bed ).

Oh, no, don't let's ignore the police logs. John didn't say he put her to bed; he said he removed either her coat or her shoes (he wasn't sure) and left the rest to Patsy; then went downstairs and helped Burke with a project he was working on. Also, I wouldn't agree that "so far as we know", only Patsy would know what JB was wearing. I don't think I mentioned anyone by name.

Are you are hinting that the perp may have been concerned that Patsy would recall which style of undies JonBenet had on when she went to bed and therefore, he/she felt they had to replace them with a pair that matched?

No. I'm hinting that someone knows that someone knows what JB was wearing when she was undressed and put to bed, and that MAY be the reason for the attempted match. There were three family members in the house that night according to the parents. If we take anyone's word for it, it will have to be theirs, right?

Perp accidently/purposefully kills JonBenet and, for reasons still being debated, wants/needs to change JonBenet's underwear. However, the perp is concerned that replacing the "soiled" underpants might be noticed by Patsy if the fresh pair do not match the "soiled" pair to be replaced. So the perp searches the underwear drawer and only finding a match in an unopened package, opens the package and puts on a "matching pair," possibly not noticing they are much too large. This way, the perp figures, Patsy won't notice the switch.

Approximately correct and, yes, "debated" is the key word: JonBenet is not necessarily dead at the point in time when the "perp" changes the underwear. I'm guessing that she wasn't. But, she may have been; at any rate, she is eventually killed by person or persons unknown.

If I may digress.... JonBenet is dead. Patsy and the family will notice that. The perp left a "ransom note." The family will notice that. JonBenet has/might have been sexually molested. The coroner will discover that, if molestation did indeed happen.

If I may digress....yes, well that JonBenet is dead is why we're here, right? Yes, Patsy and family will notice that; perhaps one of them long before the others. Yes, there is a ransom note; whether it was "left" or whether it was placed by a family member is what we've been debating. Yes, JonBenet might have been sexually molested. The coroner did discover injury to the vagina, but couldn't determine whether that was evidence of molestation or something else; leaned toward something else, I think. But, that wasn't his decision to make. I don't think he declared that she had died of that injury. So, yes, inquiring minds will discover what inquiring minds are capable of discovering, no doubt about that, though there may be some disagreement as to what the discoveries show.

Now, let me anticipate your questions by pointing out that it depends what you mean by perp, and remember that the following is hypothetical: If you mean by perp the person who molested JB and is a family member, the answer is that the perp doesn't want Patsy (in your sketch) to know that he's molested her as will be evidenced by the bloody size 4-6 undies if he leaves them on her; plus he might be concerned too that his forensics (as UKGuy is fond of saying) would be found in them.

I'm not trying to be frivolous here. Why would the perp be concerned about replacing one pair of underpants with a matching pair, given everything else he/she left behind, including a dead child and a "ransom note?" Once the perp has killed JonBenet and has made the decisions as to how the body is to be left in the wine room, why does the style of underpants matter? If Patsy was solely responsible for this, was she concerned that someone else knew what JonBenet was wearing earlier? Or if someone other than Patsy is responsible, was the perp concerned that Patsy would notice JonBenet was wearing a different style of underwear and, if so, why would the killer care? After killing a child, wouldn't matching the underwear be trivial?

The style of underpants is itself an element of the "decision" and matters if she is indeed wearing underpants when her body is found. If she's not wearing any underpants then the real perp can have us believe that the fake perp made off with them. He could decide, but he didn't, to leave the soiled underpants on her along with his forensics and not bother to clean her up. If she's wearing underpants that aren't the ones she was put to bed with, then how does the real perp explain why the fake perp changed her undies? It will be obvious that they have been changed; obvious to SOMEONE who knew which undies she had been wearing when she was put to bed and he will draw suspicion to himself. No, the matching (presumably) but too-big underwear are obviously not trivial. Trust me, if the killer is a family member he won't want Patsy (assuming she is not the perp) to know that he has changed the child's underwear. Why did he do that? What's his explanation for that? "John, did you change her underwear last night after I went to bed?" "Well, er...yes." "Why did you do that?" "Well, she soiled the others." "How did you know that?" "Well, I heard her crying and went down to investigate." "Hmmmm, wonder why I didn't hear that?", etc., etc.

I'm beginning to suspect that focusing on the size 10-12 underwear is a red herring.

Oh, good! And, isn't that just like a catfish. Let's see: according to my dictionary a red herring is (1.) a fish (2.) something dragged across a trail to confuse hunting dogs (3.) something which distracts attention from the real issue. Which of the three are you meaning? If you're meaning that I'm deliberately attempting to confuse you, then you're dead wrong. If you're meaning that the size 12-14 (not 10-12) underwear mystery is distracting you from the real issue, then you might want to explain what you think the real issue is. Also, I don't believe the forum is focusing on this issue--each thread deals with an issue and there are many threads, though I may be focusing on it at the moment. Did you have an issue that you wished to focus on? BTW, if, as you say, the comments are intriguing and excellent, why do you suspect a red herring???? Is that comment a bit disingenuous?

It may be as simple as this: it was Christmas day, a day of opening presents- of opening new packages. A little girl is getting dressed for Christmas dinner that evening. She opens one more new package that Christmas day - a package of underwear and puts on a new pair of underwear

Well, unfortunately, it isn't as simple as that, if you've been following the interviews. I would that it were that simple. The detectives have been saying, among other things, that they think those size 12-14 panties would have been pulled off in the undressing process--when the black velvet pants were removed, before the longjohns were put on. Basically, they don't think JB was wearing those undies when she got home from the Whites'. But Patsy says that didn't happen, and she claims to have undressed JB and didn't change JB's underwear that night. I guess you're saying, in a roundabout way, that you dont agree? So, if as you postulate, JB put those 12-14's on prior to going to the Whites', then the debate shifts direction (the red herring goes back to sea)--why did the perp wipe her (as seems to be the case), re-dress her (as seems to be the case), and wrap her body in blanket, etc? There may be something to this panty business, and there may not. We shall see.

If you consider all the crime-scene evidence (that includes the body and how it's dressed), such as the size 12-14 panties that would have fit a child 6 years older than JonBenet, and that didn't pull down when the black velvet pants were removed (according to the witness/suspect) and weren't purchased for JBR in the first place (according to the witness/suspect) and weren't stored with the rest of her undies (though the witness/suspect said they were), and the evidence of wiping/cleansing, and the very fact that she was even wearing underpants, regardless of style and size, after having been brutally attacked by the mysterious intruder, and the fact that the body was placed in an out-of-the-way room behind a closed and effectively locked door (the detectives couldn't get it open), and had a dubious garotte around it's neck, etc., etc., you have to ask yourself, what is the explanation for these too big panties on a dead girl whose parents were claiming (when police arrive and in their 911 call) had been kidnapped, and was discovered murdered in their own basement. "See here, detective, we found this [screwy] ransom note lying on the steps of the back, spiral staircase and our daughter is nowhere to be found."

Is it fair to say that none of us knows what happened? Now, lessee, you're of the PDI persuasion, right?

 

[sissi]

Can we back up a bit ,are we certain these panties were size 12, or were they simply described as being a bit too big for this child?
Are we certain they came from the pack that was suppose to go to a niece, or could they have been from Jonbenet's own pack ,size 8 that would be too large, as well.
I'm just not certain that the size 12's weren't just an early tab release that we all bought into? I guess I just need a fact boost

 

[RedChief]

Can we back up a bit ,are we certain these panties were size 12, or were they simply described as being a bit too big for this child?
Are we certain they came from the pack that was suppose to go to a niece, or could they have been from Jonbenet's own pack ,size 8 that would be too large, as well.
I'm just not certain that the size 12's weren't just an early tab release that we all bought into? I guess I just need a fact boost

From the 2000 interview with Patsy:

1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

Boosted?

 

[sissi]

Yep! Thanks!
It really does make a tremendous difference. On Christmas morning ,opening a pack of new panties , being told to get dressed, wanting the new ones, putting them on, all flows nicely. Having her mother available, close enough to have a little tif over which shirt to wear , suggests she did NOT put on size 12's while dressing for the Whites. They weren't hers, too big, no need, she had the same in her package, why wear them.
She didn't put them on before she left the house, and no one noticed them on her when they changed her for bed, (if all is true) then the killer put them on her. Who would care to match them up to the Wednesdays they removed? What kind of cold blooded killer would obsess over panties? Maybe someone that knew "others" were aware of her having on Wednesdays, and that others had taken potty trips with her and would remember. Example, Daphne could have been questioned, "what panties was she wearing at your house", yep ..could happen.

 

[BlueCrab]

They weren't hers, too big, no need, she had the same in her package, why wear them.

sissi,

There's no evidence that Patsy bought JonBenet size 8's during the same time she bought size 12/14 for her neice. There were no size 8 panties found in the house.

When Patsy was asked if she also bought panties for JonBenet when she bought the panties for her 13-year-old niece, Patsy replied, "I don't remember".

 

[Jayelles]

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 the brand name for the panties. They have the day of the week printed on the waist elastic and "Bloomies" emblazoned on the back.

 

[Catfish]

Red Chief,

Thanks once again for taking the time to reply. I just gotta keep digging deeper. LOL

Oh, no, don't let's ignore the police logs. John didn't say he put her to bed; he said he removed either her coat or her shoes (he wasn't sure) and left the rest to Patsy; then went downstairs and helped Burke with a project he was working on.

Concerning my comment about the police logs, I was refering to police reports filed about statements John made on December 26th.

From Steve Thomsas' book (p. 23 & 24, hb) -

Officers reconstructed some of the time line from the parent's recollection. John Ramsey said the family returned home from the party about ten o'clock, and he read to both children before they went to sleep. He confirmed that he had read to JonBenet after tucking her in.

Perhaps I should have written that John 'tucked her in' instead of saying 'put her to bed.'

John denied the accuracy of those reports in his 1997 testimony -

ST: OK. Sir, I have a question regarding the security of the home on the night of the 25th, which led to the morning of the 26th, and I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to review the police reports that were provided to you.

JR: I scanned them.

ST: Did those, what you read in those, are those factual?

JR: Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don’t think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early. Ah, and I think the other part I noted in there was they said I read to both kids before I went to bed, and that did not happened. What happened was the kids went to bed and then I read to myself in bed.

ST: John, let me ask you this. Do you attribute that to simply an officer’s error in recollection or might you have said that and . .

JR: I wouldn’t have said that. I think it might have been, maybe the way I said it, that was misinterpreted, but we clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so . . .

I still find it hard to believe that two police officers and Linda Arndt misinterpreted Johns statements.... but then again, would a Ramsey mislead anyone in this case?

 

[RedChief]

I still find it hard to believe that two police officers and Linda Arndt misinterpreted Johns statements.... but then again, would a Ramsey mislead anyone in this case?

Oh, well, Catifish,

It looks like you have dug deeper, and I misunderstood your term, "log". My humble apologies.

Thanks for refreshing my memory as to the misunderstandings, mistatements, inconsistencies and discrepancies. Don't you have to wonder what John really said in those early hours. Yes, detective Linda Arndt, now there's an exemplary law officer if ever I saw one. It's all in the suspects eyes. What do you glean from looking into Linda's wild eyes? These purported inaccuracies and downright lies have been a stumbling block for sleuths from the beginning. I bought the books thinking that I'd be able to rely on them for factual information; no way Jose! One cannot even rely on the police reports, interviews, depositions, affadavits, etc. I guess it is the nature of man to misunderstand, misreport and misinform. Thank heaven for Miss Piggy. I'm surprised that Patsy hasn't been better prepared for her interviews. She seems to have been caught in some downright lies. Now, John, I think he's quite a bit better prepared and more honest, actually, for the most part. There are subjects discussed in the interviews where Patsy speaks fluently and has total recall. There are other subjects where she gets mighty halting and hazy. I'm not aware that John has recanted about the papoose-like wrapping, or about telling Arndt it looked like an inside job; however, he clarified this statement in a later interview, by explaining that he'd had the housekeeper in mind. I could believe that an officer misunderstood his remark about reading to the kids; he might have said, I put the kids to bed then read a while. But, as you say, for 3 officers to report that he said he'd read to the kids, does give you pause. It's not unusual, as I'm sure you know, for the information in these police reports to be contested by witnesses and defendants. To err is human, and to deny is divine. But, if you choose to believe the earlier testimony, which ought to be more accurate, then we have John putting her to bed (tucking her in), whatever that means, and reading to her. So, why'd he change his testimony? BTW, How does one put a 9-yr-old Burke to bed? Can't he undress himself? Can't he put his own pajamas on? Can't he turn his own bed covers down? Can't he crawl into bed and turn out the light? Can't he draw the covers up around him without help from papa? What exactly does one do? What exactly does John do? Let the boy have a little privacy, for cryin' out loud. The Ramseys have never been known to intentionally mislead anyone, Police, FBI, bank authorites or stray dogs.

As for JonBenet putting the big panties on; well, that sounds like something a child her age might do, granted; but, where is mom in all this? These panties seem way too big; how would she keep them up long enough to put the black velvet pants on over them? Where there's a will, there's a way, huh. And, what would wearing those monsters feel like? 'Twould be a might uncomfortable, wouldn't it, with all that extra cloth wadded up in her crotch? Maybe she had worn pull-ups inside them while at the Whites'. Maybe those pull-ups were removed when she went to bed. But, if so, why didn't Patsy admit it? I thought pull-ups were sufficient in and of themselves. But, there is that vanity thing, I guess. Now, maybe the questions I'm posing reveal my ignorance of such matters. If y'all think the big panties is no problem, then'll I'll be glad to know that, so I can turn my attention to other matters. Then, there is this, if it is your objective to switch panties without having anyone notice they've been switched, what makes you think you can get away with it with those size 12-14 parachutes? How much bigger around the waist and hips is a 12 yr-old than a 6-yr-old?

So, by all means, let's pursue the JonBenet did it theory (JDI) side by side with all the others; see where it leads. Whaddya say? After all it's the truth we're after, isn't it? I vote for you as chairman of the JDI committee; seriously. Whoops, watch out for that red herring. He's stalled halfway to the beach.

Laughter is the best medicine.

 

[UKGuy]

Dont forget the BPD will know from fiber analysis if JonBenet wore those size-12 underwear beneath her black velvet pants, or even her tights if she wore those, and anything else she wore that night we dont know about, but if the are clean of anything but random fibers, excluding the white longjohns of course, then she was re-dressed in those size-12 pants and that is direct evidence of staging!!!

 

[Catfish]

Don't you have to wonder what John really said in those early hours... But, if you choose to believe the earlier testimony, which ought to be more accurate, then we have John putting her to bed (tucking her in)...and reading to her. So, why'd he change his testimony?

Here I go, speculating again.... if John, as reported by the police, tucked JonBenet in bed and read to her, that makes him alone with her that night, possibly the last family member to see her alive. Ten days after her death, on January 4, 1997, CNN runs a story with the headline " Slain 6-year-old Colorado girl was sexually molested, source says" http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/04/slain.girl/

In the court of public opinion, this placed John in a very uncomfortable position. Already under the "umbrella of suspicion," information of sexual molestation lead to speculation that John may have killed JonBenet. I believe that in order to distance himself from this situation, he and Patsy rehearsed the "JonBenet was zonked" story prior to their testimony in April, 1997.

As for JonBenet putting the big panties on; well, that sounds like something a child her age might do, granted; but...These panties seem way too big; how would she keep them up long enough to put the black velvet pants on over them?

I should have consulted with my wife before I advanced that theory. I've seen my 6-year-old granddaughter wearing her mother's cotton socks several times, with the heel coming half way up her calf. Between my observation of my grandaughter wearing oversized socks and assuming the elastic in a new pair of underwear would hold up oversized undies, I dove head first into shallow waters. My wife has since informed me that, in no way, would such large size underwear cling to a small girls hips by the elastic band. I stand humbly corrected. :blushing:

So, by all means, let's pursue the JonBenet did it theory (JDI) side by side with all the others; see where it leads. Whaddya say? After all it's the truth we're after, isn't it? I vote for you as chairman of the JDI committee; seriously. Whoops, watch out for that red herring. He's stalled halfway to the beach.

Well, it won't take long before that committee disbands for lack of evidence, will it! Paraphrasing what you so eloquently wrote elsewhere, better to keep quiet and have people think I'm stupid than to open my mouth and remove all doubt. :crazy:

 

[RedChief]

Here I go, speculating again.... if John, as reported by the police, tucked JonBenet in bed and read to her, that makes him alone with her that night, possibly the last family member to see her alive. Ten days after her death, on January 4, 1997, CNN runs a story with the headline " Slain 6-year-old Colorado girl was sexually molested, source says" http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/04/slain.girl/

In the court of public opinion, this placed John in a very uncomfortable position. Already under the "umbrella of suspicion," information of sexual molestation lead to speculation that John may have killed JonBenet. I believe that in order to distance himself from this situation, he and Patsy rehearsed the "JonBenet was zonked" story prior to their testimony in April, 1997.

Catfish,

Thanks for your reply and the info contained therein.

The "JonBenet was zonked" story: Zonked? Oh, you mean tranquilized by Priscilla with the special plate of cracked crab? Have you ever partaken of the cracked crab? What parent would want to molest a zonked daughter. Yes, they seem to want us to think that JonBenet was virtually comatose when John carried her upstairs and put her to bed. They've made a big deal about that for some reason. And John had nothing to do with tucking her in, 'cept removin' her shoes; why would he bother to do that? Couldn't Patsy just as easily have done that as part of the tucking in process? Hey, I seem to recall that John was such a neatnick that he'd remove HIS shoes upon entering the house. He was in his stocking feet while standing in the bayou that formed when the wind turned the shower on in that one upstairs bathroom. Which reminds me to ask this question again: was Patsy's shower really unserviceable? Did she not have access that morning to other showers or means of bathing? Was this someting the BPD checked out? I remember reading that her shower had been repaired at one time, and that in order to repair it, the workmen busted a big hole in the wall. Par for the course. But, that was prior to the murder. Did their work not endure? I recall that Patsy said she put her makeup on that morning 'cause she wanted to look nice for Melinda's boyfriend; wasn't concerned about how she smelled though? Did she look distraught when the first officer arrived? Did she appear to have been crying? Did she seem exhausted? Wouldn't you want to know? Gosh, busted showers, busted windows, deactivated security alarm systems. Which reminds me, when I was in that business many moons ago, we often installed IR motion detection in basements and other rooms. Guess that method of intrusion detection has gone out of vogue? Recall that Smit speculated that the intruder entered through the BW because there would be no security on that window; said burglers often do this. What self-respecting alarm company doesn't install intrusion detection on or near basement windows???? Guess that system was just too big a nuisance? Might have been pretty effective while the Ramseys were away and the house was vacant, or at night on the lower levels? Isn't John a graduate electrical engineer? Why's he referring to high voltages as "large"?

"..in no way, would such large size underwear cling to a small girls hips by the elastic band." Couldn't she have used duct tape or bubble gum? Of course your wife ought to know; wives tend to know these things; still, it might be premature to lay down your arms. Maybe LE was "stretching" the truth a bit about the size of the undies. No pun intended. Remember how they sprung one on John--fibers from his shirt in her underpants. Remember how he reacted--that is ! Seemed like a heartfelt reaction to me. So, do they or do they (LE) not have those fibers from that shirt? Further, how can we be sure they have the right shirt? Further, how can we be sure the clothing items Patsy gave them are the right ones? Can you imagine that she would give LE the very shirt that she was wearing when she applied the tape? Nah! What are attorneys for?

What I so "eloquently wrote" is a maxim that I borrowed from anonymous. Why no DNA on swab or smear, but DNA in undies? Where was DNAX found? Maybe we should do a poll; ask that only posters in the know participate. Did JBR put those big undies on? BTW, I should have written, JIU (Jonbenet installed undies) instead of JDI; that's what I meant. Disbanding for lack of evidence; yes, that's what happened to my group quite a while back--about 5 years ago, to be inexact.

Cheers!

 

[sissi]

Maybe the perp was very careful in not leaving his dna, perhaps his only error was using a handkerchief to clean her, one that contained his dna .

 

[Nehemiah]

The style of underpants is itself an element of the "decision" and matters if she is indeed wearing underpants when her body is found. If she's not wearing any underpants then the real perp can have us believe that the fake perp made off with them. He could decide, but he didn't, to leave the soiled underpants on her along with his forensics and not bother to clean her up. If she's wearing underpants that aren't the ones she was put to bed with, then how does the real perp explain why the fake perp changed her undies? It will be obvious that they have been changed; obvious to SOMEONE who knew which undies she had been wearing when she was put to bed and he will draw suspicion to himself. No, the matching (presumably) but too-big underwear are obviously not trivial. Trust me, if the killer is a family member he won't want Patsy (assuming she is not the perp) to know that he has changed the child's underwear. Why did he do that? What's his explanation for that? "John, did you change her underwear last night after I went to bed?" "Well, er...yes." "Why did you do that?" "Well, she soiled the others." "How did you know that?" "Well, I heard her crying and went down to investigate." "Hmmmm, wonder why I didn't hear that?", etc., etc.

If the perp had not replaced her underwear, then the BPD, upon discovery of the body, may have begun looking around for the removed underwear. Perhaps the perp didn't want to risk that at that particular time.

 

[RedChief]

If the perp had not replaced her underwear, then the BPD, upon discovery of the body, may have begun looking around for the removed underwear. Perhaps the perp didn't want to risk that at that particular time.

Nehemiah,

Great observation! But, I'm still in a quandary: it may make sense that the perp replaced the underwear for the reason you stated, but does it make sense that he'd choose those titanics? The size is a major component of the mystery. Maybe LE stretched the truth. Also, the titanics weren't discovered until the autopsy was peformed; that alone gave the perp plenty of breathing room. Probably one of the Whites knows the answer to the mystery bloomers. Maybe even Fleet, as it was his custom, if not duty, (custom? duty?) to help the little girls with their feminine hygiene.

I thought you were going to start a thread on the clothing; change your mind?

sissi,

Yeah, wiped her with his hanky, after all, it was hanky panky, right? No, that won't work. It'd be her hanky. Still puzzled as to why DNA in the undies, purportedly only in conjunction with the areas of red staining on the "inner" aspect of the crotch of the undies. One might infer that the DNA was comingled with the blood when it was deposited. If that were the case, then either (1.) very little DNA and none left on/in the body or (2.) a ton of it left on/in the body and LE failed to collect it. I've heard it mentioned that the DNA represents saliva. Where did this rumor come from--Carol McKinley? What is saliva doing in her undies? Weird! Maybe the DNA came from the instrument (the brush?) that was used to inflict the injury--transferred from hand to brush to body. Maybe that would explain why there was so little? Vaginal injury: major or minor in your estimation?

Maybe she was wet when the perp found her (it appears that she urinated while alive--empty bladder) and her condition turned him off, and that's why he didn't rape her per se. Then, there would be evidence of that where she had been lying. Someone should start a thread on pedophilia--Smit says it's a pedophile. Here's something to consider: the Oliva fellow, said he guessed LE decided he didn't do it, or words to that effect. Maybe he used an article of clothing, or a cloth, that didn't belong to him to accomplish the wiping and that accounts for the mystery DNA? No, 'cause she also had mystery DNA under her fingernails. Darn! That fellow, Raburn, said something similar in his blurb to Schiller: "Guess they figured out I didn't do it." He was the $118,000 ex-convict. They could have hatched this kidnapping while he was in prison. The Henderson woman was in stir 'round about that time also. Recall that the plan to ROB the Clutters was hatched in prison by the Richard fellow, and he and Perry ended up MURDERING the entire family. God, that was a heartbreaker! Well, to their credit, they didn't leave a ransom note at the scene. One more thing: what unsub is dumb enough and/or brave enough to first kill the girl in her own home with the parents and brother present, though sleeping, then take the additional time and risk to jot down a pulitzer-prize winnning ransom note? Oh, I forgot: he killed the girl in the basement (lured her there somehow), then he waited. "Dumb as a dog he listened" until he was sure no one in the house had heard whatever commotion there may have been (the scream?), then he stole back upstairs, penned the bizarre note, placed it on the stairs, high-tailed out the patio door and into the alley, and hot-footed it to his temporary abode--a cardboard box in a train culvert, where 118th street intersects the track.

Stop me before I ramble more.

 

[Nehemiah]

It makes the most sense to me that she was already wearing the Wed. panties, and the perp thought he was replacing them with a pair just like the ones he removed. He either didn't know a thing about sizes, or thought no one else would notice the size change. After all, they looked exactly alike. Wonder if he replaced them before death, or after?

 

[sissi]

Is rambling a bad thing?
I'm not too proud, here's a shot....
Perp comes to the house to visit the Ramseys, he wants to either say "hi", or he wants something, maybe he watched the scrooge mcduck version of a Christmas Carol and thought his arrival would spark some sympathy/money offering from Mr. Ramsey. He walked in, no one remembered to lock up, why should they, it was "Christmas in a postcard" land. The Chamber of Commerce was putting out ..to keep as much boulder burglary crap out of the news as possible. The day was about blazing cozy fires ,tinsel and glitter. However not so for our perp, his day was lonely enough to drop in uninvited ,I suppose he wasn't wanted anywhere else, he spent his day annoying his own family, bitchin' and complaining about what they didn't have, and absorbing his drug/alcohol of choice. House empty, no magic, no offer of money , so leave empty handed, or sit around and let the creative juices flow. Write the damn note , create a scenario on paper where ya get what ya want, ya get to torment the "cheapskate" for a few hours, and ya get the 118,000 that in some way you calculated as do you. Ya hear them coming in? Hide away in some dark corner of that basement, bored? fashion a leash of some sort to take the child like a dog. They go to bed,leave the note on the stairs, run up, pick up the child, she awakens, stun her, she empties her bladder , which is more than an inconvenience, take her out of that house, she screams , punish her for doing that to you, rage, hurt her, strangle her, kick her in the head, after all she wet you. The body is quiet, the Ramseys still asleep, dump her back in that house like debris on the basement floor.