What was John wearing the morning of Dec. 26?

[JMO8778]

A new pair of underwear could also have been put on JB to hide the toilet rage aspects of the crime. Suppose JB had soiled her underwear and the parents removed this crucial part of evidence. Which is why they had to put JB in some other underwear for their staged scene.

But the question remains why the killer (a family member) did not put one of the numerous available pairs of size 6 underwear on JonBenet's body then, but a largely oversized pair. Was it because 'Wednesday' was written on the size 12 underwear?

and maybe b/c they were new and had no stains on them?I think LHP said most of JB's underwear was?

 

[JMO8778]

JMO8778,
Yes it is possible that Patsy had to deal with JonBenet prior to going to bed, then something went wrong, and this is the most likely scenario ...

The size-12's are like the pineapple, two faultlines running through the staged death of JonBenet e.g. one refers to upstairs when she was alive, the other to downstairs when she was dead, both are completely inconsistent with an intruder, or Toilet Rage theory.

Firstly I suspect that there is redacted forensic evidence e.g. the missing piece of the paintbrush handle, this may have been left inside JonBenet?

There is certainly evidence being withheld, since some aspects of of her death do not add up.


Now wrt size-12's lets assume a kiss/occam approach; e.g. the size-12's were actually located in the basement wrapped as a xmas-present?

Now

As a first assumption the answer I would go along with is yes, but the size-12's are so incongruous to the crime-scene its possible that some other reasoning was at work?




imo because the staging had been revised from that of a sexual assault to that of an abduction e.g. ransom note.

Possibly if I find the time I'll start a new thread dealing with the staging?



.

'

Thanks UK, as far as abduction goes,I wonder if JB was going to be dressed in the barbie gown that was found near her,and her body dumped somewhere outdoors,so as to appear to be an abduction from her bed..that would be the most logical attire for staging such a scene...but for some reason that plan was dismissed,and the barbie gown was forgotten about and left there by mistake? And it wasn't put on her anyway, due to lack of time?(or rigor mortis) I can't see how they didn't feel the need to put it on her since it was staged to be a bedtime abduction..i can only guess it was left there by mistake,after the original plan was abandoned.

 

[narlacat]

A new pair of underwear could also have been put on JB to hide the toilet rage aspects of the crime. Suppose JB had soiled her underwear and the parents removed this crucial part of evidence. Which is why they had to put JB in some other underwear for their staged scene.

But the question remains why the killer (a family member) did not put one of the numerous available pairs of size 6 underwear on JonBenet's body then, but a largely oversized pair. Was it because 'Wednesday' was written on the size 12 underwear?

That's what I've been led to believe.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

I fully agree. THERE ARE A PAIR OF SIZE 6 UNDERWEAR MISSING FROM THE CRIME SCENE. JonBenet was obviously wearing size 6 underwear prior to being sexually assaulted and killed. There were only size 6 and size 4 underwear in her underwear drawer in the bathroom. The huge size 12/14 underwear had to have been put on her by the killer after death in a naive attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime.

Only a family member would have had motive to cover up the sexual assault and stage the crime scene to look like a kidnapping gone wrong. An intruder wouldn't have cared one way or the other.

It's interesting that Patsy, during the police interviews, tried to belittle the significance of size 12/14 underwear being found on the body by implying it was normal since JonBenet wore size 8's and 10's. But Patsy was wrong. Only sizes 4 and 6 were found in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

Great to see you posting, hope you hang around. Yes Patsy clearly tried to downplay the size-12 underwear by suggesting JonBenet got them from her underwear drawer, yet as you state there were only size 6 and size 4 deposited in there, and if there were ever any size-12 underwear in her bedroom drawer, we only have Patsy's word for it!

Can anyone imagine the fashion aware Patsy, who in her own words, had an argument with JonBenet over what was suitable to wear, then sanctioning a 6-year old wearing underwear for someone twice that age, my pageant girl in oversized underwear!!


.

 

[UKGuy]

But the crime scene tells us that it was not in the stager's mind to fake normalcy. If the stager had wanted to fake normalcy, (s)he would never have created the garrote scene.

rashomon,
Obviously in a staged crime-scene not all the fake elements need correspond with an external agent.

The size-12's are a perfect example of this, that is the garrote is there to hide her asphyxiation, and the underwear to make her appear decently dressed.


.

 

[UKGuy]

'

Thanks UK, as far as abduction goes,I wonder if JB was going to be dressed in the barbie gown that was found near her,and her body dumped somewhere outdoors,so as to appear to be an abduction from her bed..that would be the most logical attire for staging such a scene...but for some reason that plan was dismissed,and the barbie gown was forgotten about and left there by mistake? And it wasn't put on her anyway, due to lack of time?(or rigor mortis) I can't see how they didn't feel the need to put it on her since it was staged to be a bedtime abduction..i can only guess it was left there by mistake,after the original plan was abandoned.

JMO8778,

Yes I think it was some mix of these motives that led to JonBenet arriving in the wine-cellar.

BlueCrab has an interesting BDI theory which has some merit, elsewhere I read speculation that JonBenet was placed into the wine-cellar to prevent Burke from accidently seeing his dead sister's corpse, e.g. those caring parents again.


.

 

[UKGuy]

A new pair of underwear could also have been put on JB to hide the toilet rage aspects of the crime. Suppose JB had soiled her underwear and the parents removed this crucial part of evidence. Which is why they had to put JB in some other underwear for their staged scene.

But the question remains why the killer (a family member) did not put one of the numerous available pairs of size 6 underwear on JonBenet's body then, but a largely oversized pair. Was it because 'Wednesday' was written on the size 12 underwear?

rashomon,

Does it follow that you believe that there was only one pair of size-6 Wednesday underwear available, and that JonBenet was wearing these when killed?

.

 

[BlueCrab]

JMO8778,


BlueCrab has an interesting BDI theory which has some merit,


.

UKGuy,

Yes, I have several BDI theories, all of them based on what I consider convincing evidence of a Ramsey coverup that protects two or more perpetrators.

However, this doesn't mean that Burke actually did it (although he could have); it means that, because of the successful Ramsey coverup due to unbelievable cooperation from the courts, the DA's office, and select media in the coverup, Burke had to be somehow involved.

Only if a child was involved, perhaps as an accomplice, would a murder case get that kind of cooperation from the authorities in supporting an obvious coverup, despite a ton of evidence pointing to the Ramsey coverup. Therefore, Burke appears in every one of my murder theories.

As a result the real killer, probably a non-family adult invited into the house by a Ramsey, walks the streets a free man.

BlueCrab

 

[Nuisanceposter]

and maybe b/c they were new and had no stains on them?I think LHP said most of JB's underwear was?

That's why I think the size 12s were chosen. The Wednesday was just an added effect, and must have been important to the redresser - but imo, the main purpose in using the larger size undies was because they were brand new and unwashed and supposedly held no evidence. If that's the case, then the Rs got really lucky when the foreign DNA was found in them.

 

[BBB167893]

Not lucky so much as the technology is much more sensitive than it used to be.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

True, SD. They couldn't have counted on foreign DNA being eventually found on those undies, though. I doubt too many regular people out there would think of it. Now I'm mildly paranoid about what could be on my brand new underwear...

Here's what I wonder...if JonBenet wanted those larger size undies for herself, and Patsy didn't care and they "made the decision" to keep them and put them in JB's drawer, why was the night she was killed the first time she had worn a pair of those undies, when she had had countless oppportunities to dress in them prior to that day and most likely would have wanted to wear them as soon as she was able to?

 

[BBB167893]

I'll tell you what: ever since this case, I am absolutely Monk-ish about the idea!

 

[Ames]

and maybe b/c they were new and had no stains on them?I think LHP said most of JB's underwear was?

I agree...I believe that this is why they were used. No stains...and no dna....(except from maybe someone at the underwear factory that made them).

 

[BBB167893]

Can't say as I would have done differently.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree...I believe that this is why they were used. No stains...and no dna....(except from maybe someone at the underwear factory that made them).

Ames,

No stains, no dna , no semen, all sounds convincing, except that some of the unselected underwear in her underwear drawer was stained, as were her pants lying on the bathroom floor, also her longjohns were urine-soaked, it would appear hiding evidence of bad hygiene or toileting was not high on the killers cleanup list!


.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

No stains, no dna , no semen, all sounds convincing, except that some of the unselected underwear in her underwear drawer was stained, as were her pants lying on the bathroom floor, also her longjohns were urine-soaked, it would appear hiding evidence of bad hygiene or toileting was not high on the killers cleanup list!


.

Yep, I thought about that....why change what she was wearing and LEAVE the undies in the drawer that DID have stains....sounds like they didn't think of EVERYTHING when they were staging the scene. They were working with a limited amount of time.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, I'd be interested to hear your theory about the Wednesday underwear.

But I think any speculation that the Wednesday pair was chosen because someone at the Whites had seen them, perhaps by assisting JBR in toileting etc., is kind of iffy.

True, PR and JR said JBR was 'zonked' when they got home and that they didn't wake her to put her in pajamas. But if they had absolutely HAD to account for a different pair of underwear, couldn't PR have claimed that she replaced the underwear when JBR's pants were removed and the long johns put on?

Unless I'm mistaken, PR always made it sound like she'd removed the velvet pants and THEN put the long johns on, not like she took off the velvet pants and left the long johns, which were underneath, there. But if she took off the velvet pants and then put on the long johns, it would be easy for her to say, if the Whites or anyone else mentioned different underpants to the police, that she had replaced them at bedtime. She has the perfect reason for doing so; her little girl was known to have 'accidents'. So why would it matter if the Whites or anyone else had seen the Wednesday pair?

IMO, the only person who needed to be fooled by the Wednesday pair was PR, in the first staging JR might have arranged. And I think JR would have known what gifts PR had been working on, because I think she came home Christmas night complaining that she still had to get gifts wrapped and ready for the Charlevoix trip, and that she was the sort of person who would have listed them all off out loud just to show how much more work she had to do before she could go to bed that night...which is why I think that JR, and not PR, was in charge of bedtime for both JBR and BR on Christmas night.

Dru,
JonBenet had a history of asking non-family friends to wipe her down, Fleet White had done this on more than one occassion!

True, PR and JR said JBR was 'zonked' when they got home and that they didn't wake her to put her in pajamas. But if they had absolutely HAD to account for a different pair of underwear, couldn't PR have claimed that she replaced the underwear when JBR's pants were removed and the long johns put on?

She could have, but then the size-6's were just a step away in her bathroom, just why would Patsy place brand-new size-12 underwear on a girl whom she knew may wet the bed? Her actual response should be not to redress JonBenet in any underwear!

The Ramsey's version of events after arriving back from the White's is really not credible, its likely JonBenet never saw her bed that night.

The point about the size-12's is that nobody PR, JR, Joe Public etc is going to be persuaded that they arrived upon JonBenet in an innocent manner.



.
.

 

[BBB167893]

sounds like they didn't think of EVERYTHING when they were staging the scene.

Try telling the CN2000 people that!

 

[UKGuy]

Yep, I thought about that....why change what she was wearing and LEAVE the undies in the drawer that DID have stains....sounds like they didn't think of EVERYTHING when they were staging the scene. They were working with a limited amount of time.

Ames,

Or there is another explanation for the size-12 underwear. Coroner Meyer held the opinion that Jonbenet had been wiped down i.e. forensic evidence had been removed, so that part was done , so to speak.

Clean underwear does not add or detract from the balance evidence!

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Or there is another explanation for the size-12 underwear. Coroner Meyer held the opinion that Jonbenet had been wiped down i.e. forensic evidence had been removed, so that part was done , so to speak.

Clean underwear does not add or detract from the balance evidence!

So, who do you think killed her, and changed her underwear? And why wipe her down, and then pull up dirty underwear?