What Shirt Was JB Wearing When She Was Killed?

[Nuisanceposter]

That's exactly what I'd like to know...WHAT are they waiting for, if there's a warehouse of evidence that needs to be examined? I suspect they are waiting for John Ramsey's eventual death, but wouldn't be surprised if they decide to wait out Burke's lifetime as well. I seriously doubt all of the info will become public knowledge...at least not in my lifetime.

We know that the current DA, Lacy, hasn't bothered to research the case and isn't going to do anything about it as long as she can get away with it. She's proven that. And as long as her office has possession of the case, we are at a standstill. Other than the petition to get this case investigated by someone else, I don't know what we can do other than wait.

 

[rashomon]

Ames,

And if she was redressed, are the order ot the above undressing operations reversed, if yes, why are her arms not down by her side?


.

If you scroll to the fifth picture down (the caption says) "JonBenet face at house", that's the actual position one of her arms was in (the other can't be seen). JB was already in rigor mortis when the picture was taken in the Ramsey living room. It's different from the artist's rendition - the arm seems to be bent at the elbow:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

 

[UKGuy]

We have never read...or at least I haven't....any statements from the witnesses at the party concerning anything about the Ramsey's..including what JB was wearing that night....nor have I seen pictures....Steve Thomas has the same theory that I do....and he was THERE...and he talked to people and he saw the pictures. I think that HE probably knows alot more that WE do. I also think that alot of evidence has been withheld from the public....which is obvious, because the pictures that the White's took at the party have never been released.

Ames,

Steve Thomas has told us in his book that he analysed the White's photographs extensively, this was how he realized Patsy had worn the same clothes two days running!

The Ramsey's have made statements to the effect that JonBenet went to the White's party wearing the White Gap Top, she was discovered dead wearing the White Gap Top, the parents say she returned home wearing the White Gap Top, they also state they never removed the White Gap Top.

The Red Turtleneck would have been visible on JonBenet its neck rising above that of the White Gap Top, so I doubt anybody could get away with saying JonBenet only wore the White Gap Top if pictures of her sporting a Red Turtleneck are available. Steve Thomas would have let us know if these existed just as he did regarding Patsy's party clothing, particularly if it added more evidence to his theory.

Steve Thomas has the same theory that I do....

Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence, as is Lou Smit's Intruder theory, for the same reason.


.

 

[UKGuy]

If you scroll to the fifth picture down (the caption says) "JonBenet face at house", that's the actual position one of her arms was in (the other can't be seen). JB was already in rigor mortis when the picture was taken in the Ramsey living room. It's different from the artist's rendition - the arm seems to be bent at the elbow:

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-thebody.htm

rashomon,

Thanks for that, yes it seems more as if JonBenet's arm is protecting her face, wonder why they should have assumed rigor-mortis in such a position?


.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Steve Thomas has told us in his book that he analysed the White's photographs extensively, this was how he realized Patsy had worn the same clothes two days running!

And since Steve Thomas has actually seen those photos...then HE should know what JB was wearing. Why then, is he so persistant that she was wearing the red turtleneck when she went to bed?

The Ramsey's have made statements to the effect that JonBenet went to the White's party wearing the White Gap Top, she was discovered dead wearing the White Gap Top, the parents say she returned home wearing the White Gap Top, they also state they never removed the White Gap Top.

Uhhhhh....yeah. And the Ramsey's have never made an inconsistant statement or told a flat out lie, before...right? Just because they say its so....does not MAKE it so. They are trying to protect their butts.

The Red Turtleneck would have been visible on JonBenet its neck rising above that of the White Gap Top, so I doubt anybody could get away with saying JonBenet only wore the White Gap Top if pictures of her sporting a Red Turtleneck are available. Steve Thomas would have let us know if these existed just as he did regarding Patsy's party clothing, particularly if it added more evidence to his theory.

Maybe so, but...I still believe she was wearing the red turtleneck....as does Steve Thomas. Whether she wore it to the White's...or whether Patsy put her in it for bed, to make it easier to get ready for their trip the next morning. REGARDLESS...I believe ...and STEVE believes that she was actually wearing that red turtleneck when she went to bed that night. Steve Thomas was there...and Steve Thomas interviewed her. He also said that Patsy INTIALLY said that JB was wearing the red turtleneck, and then changed her mind. It wasn't Steve's daughter that was murdered under HIS nose, and in HIS house, while HE slept....so, what reason would he have to lie, about the red turtleneck??

Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence, as is Lou Smit's Intruder theory, for the same reason.


.

Sorry, I disagree with you on this one. You make a good argument though....

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry, I disagree with you on this one. You make a good argument though....

Ames,

Thats fine, but its really the forensic evidence that you are disagreeing with, I try not to believe things are so unless they can be confirmed by the evidence!


.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Thats fine, but its really the forensic evidence that you are disagreeing with, I try not to believe things are so unless they can be confirmed by the evidence!


.

Tell me what forensic evidence points AWAY from the toileting rage scenario.

 

[Solace]

Tell me what forensic evidence points AWAY from the toileting rage scenario.

UK, I am also interested in why the forensic evidence points away from the rage theory?

 

[UKGuy]

Tell me what forensic evidence points AWAY from the toileting rage scenario.

Ames,
Please review the Forensic Evidence thread, I have covered it exhaustively there.

Summarising, JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked underwear and longjohns, despite the crime-scene being staged and JonBenet being redressed, her urine-soaked clothing was ignored, and we know that her killer(s) were aware of this due to the staging undertaken outside the wine-cellar door! Also JonBenet's feces soiled jeans/pants were left in plain view upon the bathroom floor.

So if a toileting issue was the originating factor in JonBenet's death and the crime-scene was staged to obscure this, then the above forensic evidence contradicts this!

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that some other factor(s) lies behind the death of JonBenet.


.

 

[Solace]

Ames,
Please review the Forensic Evidence thread, I have covered it exhaustively there.

Summarising, JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked underwear and longjohns, despite the crime-scene being staged and JonBenet being redressed, her urine-soaked clothing was ignored, and we know that her killer(s) were aware of this due to the staging undertaken outside the wine-cellar door! Also JonBenet's feces soiled jeans/pants were left in plain view upon the bathroom floor.

So if a toileting issue was the originating factor in JonBenet's death and the crime-scene was staged to obscure this, then the above forensic evidence contradicts this! I realize you asked us to read the forensics, but could you bear with me and tell me how the crime scene is staged to obscure this. Do you mean by wiping her down? I really don't know and it would take a sentence from you. Thanks.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that some other factor(s) lies behind the death of JonBenet. UK, it does not necessarily have to be a "toileting" issue that enraged Patsy. It could have been the fact that JB was being a brat or that she did not want to wear the turtleneck to bed and and something enraged Patsy, and so the turtleneck being pulled off her and thrown in a ball on the floor in the bath and the hair ties are also all over the floor. She could have thrown JB against the sink or the bath?

 

[UKGuy]

Ames,
Please review the Forensic Evidence thread, I have covered it exhaustively there.

Summarising, JonBenet was left wearing urine-soaked underwear and longjohns, despite the crime-scene being staged and JonBenet being redressed, her urine-soaked clothing was ignored, and we know that her killer(s) were aware of this due to the staging undertaken outside the wine-cellar door! Also JonBenet's feces soiled jeans/pants were left in plain view upon the bathroom floor.

So if a toileting issue was the originating factor in JonBenet's death and the crime-scene was staged to obscure this, then the above forensic evidence contradicts this! I realize you asked us to read the forensics, but could you bear with me and tell me how the crime scene is staged to obscure this. Do you mean by wiping her down? I really don't know and it would take a sentence from you. Thanks.

Which leads to the obvious conclusion that some other factor(s) lies behind the death of JonBenet. UK, it does not necessarily have to be a "toileting" issue that enraged Patsy. It could have been the fact that JB was being a brat or that she did not want to wear the turtleneck to bed and and something enraged Patsy, and so the turtleneck being pulled off her and thrown in a ball on the floor in the bath and the hair ties are also all over the floor. She could have thrown JB against the sink or the bath?

Solace,

So if a toileting issue was the originating factor in JonBenet's death and the crime-scene was staged to obscure this, then the above forensic evidence contradicts this! I realize you asked us to read the forensics, but could you bear with me and tell me how the crime scene is staged to obscure this. Do you mean by wiping her down? I really don't know and it would take a sentence from you. Thanks

This is the point, the crime-scene was faked to include JonBenet, she was wiped down, as per the opinion of Coroner Meyer, she was redressed in size-12 underwear, if she was wearing any size-6 underwear it is missing! Despite all this, including a sexual assault, she was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, and underwear, so if the purpose of relocating JonBenet to the wine-cellar, wiping her down, redressing her etc was to obscure that the origin of her death lay in a toileting issue, then this is contradicted by the forensic evidence, which suggests this was not the motive lying behind the staging. So Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.

UK, it does not necessarily have to be a "toileting" issue that enraged Patsy. It could have been the fact that JB was being a brat or that she did not want to wear the turtleneck to bed and and something enraged Patsy, and so the turtleneck being pulled off her and thrown in a ball on the floor in the bath and the hair ties are also all over the floor. She could have thrown JB against the sink or the bath?

Yes this is possible as is an attack motivated by a sexual impluse? In the Audra Matheny Homicide, this girl was asphyxiated whilst having to an endure a sexual assault, her asphyxiation was a result of her stepfather attempting to keep her quiet as he assaulted her!


.


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

This is the point, the crime-scene was faked to include JonBenet, she was wiped down, as per the opinion of Coroner Meyer, she was redressed in size-12 underwear, if she was wearing any size-6 underwear it is missing! Despite all this, including a sexual assault, she was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, and underwear, so if the purpose of relocating JonBenet to the wine-cellar, wiping her down, redressing her etc was to obscure that the origin of her death lay in a toileting issue, then this is contradicted by the forensic evidence, which suggests this was not the motive lying behind the staging. So Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.



Yes this is possible as is an attack motivated by a sexual impluse? In the Audra Matheny Homicide, this girl was asphyxiated whilst having to an endure a sexual assault, her asphyxiation was a result of her stepfather attempting to keep her quiet as he assaulted her!

UK, I thought the velvet jeans and the UNDERWEAR were found in the bathroom. She was wearing that the day of Fleet Whites party. Those are the size 6 underwear, are they not?

Also, the moving of Jon Benet to the basement is to present an intruder doing this and nothing more (imo). A sicko lying in wait for JB and doing whatever he wanted to her in the basement. Why do you feel the staging of the body means anything else? Also, if she were garrotted in the basement and strangled and she was still alive at the time, barely, but still alive, she would have soaked the underwear. That is plausible that she still could have wet her underwear. Everyone assumes that she had wet her bed and it was rage that fueled Patsy because of her soiling her pants and maybe so, but she could still have soaked the underwear when being strnagled?

 

[UKGuy]

Solace,

This is the point, the crime-scene was faked to include JonBenet, she was wiped down, as per the opinion of Coroner Meyer, she was redressed in size-12 underwear, if she was wearing any size-6 underwear it is missing! Despite all this, including a sexual assault, she was left wearing urine-soaked longjohns, and underwear, so if the purpose of relocating JonBenet to the wine-cellar, wiping her down, redressing her etc was to obscure that the origin of her death lay in a toileting issue, then this is contradicted by the forensic evidence, which suggests this was not the motive lying behind the staging. So Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage is inconsistent with the current forensic evidence.



Yes this is possible as is an attack motivated by a sexual impluse? In the Audra Matheny Homicide, this girl was asphyxiated whilst having to an endure a sexual assault, her asphyxiation was a result of her stepfather attempting to keep her quiet as he assaulted her!

UK, I thought the velvet jeans and the UNDERWEAR were found in the bathroom. She was wearing that the day of Fleet Whites party. Those are the size 6 underwear, are they not?

Also, the moving of Jon Benet to the basement is to present an intruder doing this and nothing more (imo). A sicko lying in wait for JB and doing whatever he wanted to her in the bathroom. Why do you feel the staging of the body means anything else?

Solace,

UK, I thought the velvet jeans and the UNDERWEAR were found in the bathroom. She was wearing that the day of Fleet Whites party. Those are the size 6 underwear, are they not?

What underwear, have you a source for this? The jeans/pants discovered lying on the bathroom floor are presumed to be what she was wearing prior to dressing for the White's.

An intruder has no need to stage a homicide, but a resident may have!


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

What underwear, have you a source for this? The jeans/pants discovered lying on the bathroom floor are presumed to be what she was wearing prior to dressing for the White's.

An intruder has no need to stage a homicide, but a resident may have!


.

Of course an intruder has no need to stage. So John and Patsy staged to look like an intruder. But a lot is getting read into this and sometimes that can lead one astray as to what really happened.

Someone brought her down stairs and staged the scene. Okay, she was also killed down there. I think she was brought down there to make it look like a stranger brought her there. The large underwear could have been put on her in a frantic search for underwear, not for any other reason and they were urine soaked when she was strangled as she then lost complete control of her functions, as happens. Or maybe they were put on her to make it look like a stranger did this in his weird sexual fantasy and they were put on her intentionally.

She was wiped down, okay. Just in a hurry as a matter of thoroughness, wipe down any possible fibers. No one is thinking straight in this house at this moment.

I know you believe that there was sexual molestation going on and are inclined to believe a sex scene was also going on that night and the killing involved both Patsy and John. I think it is a farfethched theory, but it could have happened that way. I just don't aspire to that theory. Cyril Wecht does as well as others, I know.

 

[UKGuy]

I know you believe that there was sexual molestation going on and are inclined to believe a sex scene was also going on that night and the killing involved both Patsy and John. I think it is a farfethched theory, but it could have happened that way. I just don't aspire to that theory. Cyril Wecht does as well as others, I know.

Solace,

I dont believe, the forensic evidence suggests she was sexually assaulted, Coroner Meyer opined during the autopsy that JonBenet had been digitally penetrated, and in his Autopsy Report that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse! JonBenet's hymen was much larger than you would naturally expect in girl of her age.


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

I dont believe, the forensic evidence suggests she was sexually assaulted, Coroner Meyer opined during the autopsy that JonBenet had been digitally penetrated, and in his Autopsy Report that there was evidence of chronic sexual abuse! JonBenet's hymen was much larger than you would naturally expect in girl of her age.


.

UK, I don't think I was clear and I apologize. Coroner Meyer said to Det. Arndt that he believed she was molested. He did not put it in the autopsy report. I do know that she exhibited physical signs of being molested. That is not what I am dispputing.

What I am asking you is why you think the staging contradicts a rage killing by Patsy. I am not necessarily saying Patsy was enraged by the soiling of the underwear. I understand that the scene was staged and the body wiped down and she was wearing large underwear and they were urine stained. As I said in my last post, I explained why I thought that happened. What I do not understand is why you think the staging contradicts a rage killing. I do know that Patsy was asked about the soiled pants and I thought there were soiled underwear in those pants THAT WERE IN A PICTURE TAKEN OF THE CRIME SCENE. They were obviously taken off by JonBenet and scrunched down to her feet and she stepped out of them - Patsy agreed they were soiled and said JonBenet had a hard time with cleanliness.

One other question, would you like to opine what happened that night? I would be very interested.

 

[UKGuy]

UK, I don't think I was clear and I apologize. Coroner Meyer said to Det. Arndt that he believed she was molested. He did not put it in the autopsy report. I do know that she exhibited physical signs of being molested. That is not what I am dispputing.

What I am asking you is why you think the staging contradicts a rage killing by Patsy. I am not necessarily saying Patsy was enraged by the soiling of the underwear. I understand that the scene was staged and the body wiped down and she was wearing large underwear and they were urine stained. As I said in my last post, I explained why I thought that happened. What I do not understand is why you think the staging contradicts a rage killing. I do know that Patsy was asked about the soiled pants and I thought there were soiled underwear in those pants THAT WERE IN A PICTURE TAKEN OF THE CRIME SCENE. They were obviously taken off by JonBenet and scrunched down to her feet and she stepped out of them - Patsy agreed they were soiled and said JonBenet had a hard time with cleanliness.

One other question, would you like to opine what happened that night? I would be very interested.

Solace,

What I am asking you is why you think the staging contradicts a rage killing by Patsy.

I never said the latter, only that Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the forensic evidence.

Its evident that all three residents of the Ramsey household are complicit in the cover up, they all offered conflicting accounts of what transpired that night, regardless of the sequence of events, e.g. Burke knows whether JonBenet was awake or asleep, what time she ate pineapple, and who supervised this.

With evidence of actual and prior sexual abuse this should take precedence as a motive, particularly if other theories are either incomplete or inconsistent e.g. Toilet Rage or Intruder.

So it appears JonBenet was killed as she was being sexually assaulted, this is what was being covered up.

If it had been an accident and JonBenet's life could have been saved by medical intervention, Patsy who had cancer, imo would have dialled 911 on the spot!


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

I never said the latter, only that Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the forensic evidence. Okay.

Its evident that all three residents of the Ramsey household are complicit in the cover up, they all offered conflicting accounts of what transpired that night, regardless of the sequence of events, e.g. Burke knows whether JonBenet was awake or asleep, what time she ate pineapple, and who supervised this. I agree that all three are complicit. Firstly, because Berke said she walked in and then changed his story and several other things. But that is good enough for me.

With evidence of actual and prior sexual abuse this should take precedence as a motive, particularly if other theories are either incomplete or inconsistent e.g. Toilet Rage or Intruder. I understand that; however, if it were corporal punishment in the form of cleaning her up and it could happen. She is a child remember and Patsy is concerned about the ongoing infections from wet underwear and I could very well see her using a douch on JonBenet. And it would be quite painful for a child.

So it appears JonBenet was killed as she was being sexually assaulted, this is what was being covered up. I have to disagree. It does not appear that she was being killed as she was being sexually assaulted. It does appear that the sexual assault was a staging after the blow to the head (which could be a whole other argument by some). There is no semen whatsoever anywhere. It very much looks like they wanted the finders to believe that a sexual predator was molesting their daughter and killed her.

If it had been an accident and JonBenet's life could have been saved by medical intervention, Patsy who had cancer, imo would have dialled 911 on the spot! Once again, Patsy was more than likely frantic with the limpness of her body, she probably checked her eyes and she was shaking her frantically and hard because the bruising on the side of her heads demonstrates this. This is not a golf club accident where JB is still awake. This child is for all intents and purposes lifeless and Patsy is frantic and Patsy is going to have to explain ho such an injury occurred.

Kris Kristopherson asks this of ST is PM/PT - he says "so she kills her because she would have been embarrassed". Steve Thomas says "I have seen it before".

It happens UK. Simple accidents (albeit rage filled) happen and then the attacker is sorry but it is too late and it can happen in an instant.

 

[UKGuy]

Solace,

I never said the latter, only that Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage theory is inconsistent with the forensic evidence. Okay.

Its evident that all three residents of the Ramsey household are complicit in the cover up, they all offered conflicting accounts of what transpired that night, regardless of the sequence of events, e.g. Burke knows whether JonBenet was awake or asleep, what time she ate pineapple, and who supervised this. I agree that all three are complicit. Firstly, because Berke said she walked in and then changed his story and several other things. But that is good enough for me.

With evidence of actual and prior sexual abuse this should take precedence as a motive, particularly if other theories are either incomplete or inconsistent e.g. Toilet Rage or Intruder. I understand that; however, if it were corporal punishment in the form of cleaning her up and it could happen. She is a child remember and Patsy is concerned about the ongoing infections from wet underwear and I could very well see her using a douch on JonBenet. And it would be quite painful for a child.

So it appears JonBenet was killed as she was being sexually assaulted, this is what was being covered up. I have to disagree. It does not appear that she was being killed as she was being sexually assaulted. It does appear that the sexual assault was a staging after the blow to the head (which could be a whole other argument by some). There is no semen whatsoever anywhere. It very much looks like they wanted the finders to believe that a sexual predator was molesting their daughter and killed her.

If it had been an accident and JonBenet's life could have been saved by medical intervention, Patsy who had cancer, imo would have dialled 911 on the spot! Once again, Patsy was more than likely frantic with the limpness of her body, she probably checked her eyes and she was shaking her frantically and hard because the bruising on the side of her heads demonstrates this. This is not a golf club accident where JB is still awake. This child is for all intents and purposes lifeless and Patsy is frantic and Patsy is going to have to explain ho such an injury occurred.

Kris Kristopherson asks this of ST is PM/PT - he says "so she kills her because she would have been embarrassed". Steve Thomas says "I have seen it before".

It happens UK. Simple accidents (albeit rage filled) happen and then the attacker is sorry but it is too late and it can happen in an instant.

Solace,

You are not alone in thinking Patsy killed Jonbenet in a rage attack, ultimately it may be shown this is what indeed occurred, but on the basis of the available forensic evidence, it appears more complicated than this.


.

 

[Solace]

Solace,

You are not alone in thinking Patsy killed Jonbenet in a rage attack, ultimately it may be shown this is what indeed occurred, but on the basis of the available forensic evidence, it appears more complicated than this.

Again, I have to disagree with you UK. The forensics do not appear complicated to me. They show what may be prior sexual abuse, and the key word is "may"; it could have been prior corporal punishment in the form of a douch daily or weekly; the same injuries could have been done with a douch and just as painful physically.

There is what appears to be a sexual situation staged in the basement. There is no semen available; there is evidence of Patsy near and with her in the basement along with John. There is evidence of Patsy's prints on the pineapple bowl.

You seem to be more inclined to believe there was some sort of sex play going on and it led to JB's death. I am not inclined to believe that. But it has been an interesting discussion. Thanks.

But thank you for your responses.