Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[SunnieRN]

So, here is a 6 year old who is incontinent often. Not only of urine, but stool. She has stained underwear as she is not able to properly wipe herself. She is not against asking people, other than family, for assistance in the bathroom. She had a drawer full of undies, that she could change at will. Some undoubtedly small and tight (size 4's), some that probably fit correctly. The established record is that all were fecal stained.

You have a Mom, who is big on appearance. Not so big on how things were beneath the surface, she was still gung ho about appearances. She kept her daughters fecal stained underwear, freely available for her daughter to change in to at will.

The night we are discussing, JB went to a party with her family. PR queen of appearances, had to have known that JB was wearing undies, as they had an argument about what JB was going to wear. She also knew that dressing her daughter in size 12 underwear, would be ludicrous.

Sp, JB is in the basement, or brought to the basement. She is 'cleaned' enough to remove evidence. She is placed in size 12 undies, under her long johns.

First of all, Patsy hadn't given JB size 12 undies, (not found in her panty drawer). She stated that JB had smaller day of the week panties, but didn't wear them in any particular day sequence.

So, why would JB be in size 12 undies? Possibilities:

A) Patsy knew nothing about the undies or undie change. This means she is not the person who cleaned JB up and redressed her.

B) Patsy was fully aware that she dressed, or gave her accomplice the too large undies, (which had JR's DNA present), as it was a way to raise suspicion. Kind of like 'insurance'.

C) The killer had already redressed JB and JR pulled on the underwear, while applying the long johns over them.

I am sure there are many more possibilities. I absolutely hate this underwear aspect, as it speaks to not only the abuse, but to the extent the family went to in their cover up.

Size 12 undies are non sensical themselves, but for the R's to then give the rest of the package to the police, years later?! I have to wonder what this says about guilt and what the R's were trying to accomplish, by turning it in at all.

 

[UKGuy]

So, here is a 6 year old who is incontinent often. Not only of urine, but stool. She has stained underwear as she is not able to properly wipe herself. She is not against asking people, other than family, for assistance in the bathroom. She had a drawer full of undies, that she could change at will. Some undoubtedly small and tight (size 4's), some that probably fit correctly. The established record is that all were fecal stained.

You have a Mom, who is big on appearance. Not so big on how things were beneath the surface, she was still gung ho about appearances. She kept her daughters fecal stained underwear, freely available for her daughter to change in to at will.

The night we are discussing, JB went to a party with her family. PR queen of appearances, had to have known that JB was wearing undies, as they had an argument about what JB was going to wear. She also knew that dressing her daughter in size 12 underwear, would be ludicrous.

Sp, JB is in the basement, or brought to the basement. She is 'cleaned' enough to remove evidence. She is placed in size 12 undies, under her long johns.

First of all, Patsy hadn't given JB size 12 undies, (not found in her panty drawer). She stated that JB had smaller day of the week panties, but didn't wear them in any particular day sequence.

So, why would JB be in size 12 undies? Possibilities:

A) Patsy knew nothing about the undies or undie change. This means she is not the person who cleaned JB up and redressed her.

B) Patsy was fully aware that she dressed, or gave her accomplice the too large undies, (which had JR's DNA present), as it was a way to raise suspicion. Kind of like 'insurance'.

C) The killer had already redressed JB and JR pulled on the underwear, while applying the long johns over them.

I am sure there are many more possibilities. I absolutely hate this underwear aspect, as it speaks to not only the abuse, but to the extent the family went to in their cover up.

Size 12 undies are non sensical themselves, but for the R's to then give the rest of the package to the police, years later?! I have to wonder what this says about guilt and what the R's were trying to accomplish, by turning it in at all.

SunnieRN,
I think the R's found the size-12's so to partially confirm Patsy's version of events. i.e. that she placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

Otherwise it meant that the Intruder had redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and left with the remaining pairs!

A) Has to be true, otherwise Patsy would know what she did with the remaining size-12 pairs.

B) Has to be false, otherwise Patsy would have had a credible story prepared regarding the location of the size-12's. When interviewed she just made it up as she went along, including some tactical losses of memory.

C) Is likely to true. That is the killer redressed JonBenet in the size-12's then reported to Patsy that JonBenet had accidentally fallen over?


.

 

[SunnieRN]

UK, I am just confused at the immersion to which PR was involved. I think the timeline is there, but it is unknown exactly what role each family member played.

I think most of us can agree that the ransom note was written by PR, that fibers from her sweater were not just on, but entwined into the garote. This leads me to ask what was being done, by whom, while PR was accomplishing these tasks.

I have never read about the sweater fibers being on/in with the wrist ligatures. PR's DNA was not on the underwear, etc.

 

[UKGuy]

UK, I am just confused at the immersion to which PR was involved. I think the timeline is there, but it is unknown exactly what role each family member played.

I think most of us can agree that the ransom note was written by PR, that fibers from her sweater were not just on, but entwined into the garote. This leads me to ask what was being done, by whom, while PR was accomplishing these tasks.

I have never read about the sweater fibers being on/in with the wrist ligatures. PR's DNA was not on the underwear, etc.

SunnieRN,
PR was in deep, very deep.

Each persons role surely depends on your favorite theory.

BDI has Burke molesting and whacking JonBenet. Then Patsy and John take turns in revising the staging.

The forensic evidence suggests it was Patsy who asphyxiated JonBenet, but it could have been John.

I have never read about the sweater fibers being on/in with the wrist ligatures. PR's DNA was not on the underwear, etc.

Neither was John's or Burke's. Burke's touch-dna was found on the pink-barbie nightgown along with Patsy's. Now there's a coincidence.



.

 

[DeeDee249]

You know what they say about coincidences.....there are none.

As for the "smaller" Day of the Week panties, Patsy never said definitively that JB had a set. She told LE that she "didn't remember" whether she bought one set or two.
I believe she DID remember. It wasn't that long ago (a few weeks). And she would have bought a set for JB if she bought one for her niece.

 

[UKGuy]

You know what they say about coincidences.....there are none.

As for the "smaller" Day of the Week panties, Patsy never said definitively that JB had a set. She told LE that she "didn't remember" whether she bought one set or two.
I believe she DID remember. It wasn't that long ago (a few weeks). And she would have bought a set for JB if she bought one for her niece.

DeeDee249,
Not when Burke and JonBenet may have sat upstairs at the breakfast bar with Patsy serving up pineapple to JonBenet: "Come here Burke and take this bowl to JonBenet."

I wonder why Patsy could not remember about the size-6's. JonBenet was allegedly present in Bloomingdales, it seems natural if she purchases a pack for Jenny that JonBenet should recieve a pack too?

From memory, when Patsy had her memory loss about the size-6's, she had yet to be told, no size-12's were found.

Maybe its just some legal advice she received, so she could revise at a later date, with some enhancement of her memory?

After all, if she purchased the size-6's, then obviously they will be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, and Patsy will know in advance that they will be found, contrast this with the size-12's!

I would go for Patsy helping JonBenet to bath and dress on 12/25. I can see Patsy dressing JonBenet in the Bloomingdales Wednesday size-6 pair, along with the rest of her clothing, helping her with her hair etc.

Another aspect to this feature of the case is, I would assume Patsy paid for the underwear using either a Store Charge Card or her own Credit Card, so how come BPD could not get those records either from the bank or from Bloomingdales?

Now if what you suggest above is 100% correct and that Patsy possibly did not purchase size-6 Bloomingdales, then all bets are off, regarding who did what and why wrt staging.

Not unless JonBenet was wearing a non-Bloomingdales Wednesday pair, which would mean this Day Of the Week pair would be missing from her underwear drawer?

I reckon one of these two scenarios is indeed the case, and that this is why we have never been told anything about the underwear taken from JonBenet's drawer. i.e. there will be two missing pairs of Wednesday Day Of the Week underwear, e.g. 1 size-6, & 1 size-12?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Not when Burke and JonBenet may have sat upstairs at the breakfast bar with Patsy serving up pineapple to JonBenet: "Come here Burke and take this bowl to JonBenet."

I wonder why Patsy could not remember about the size-6's. JonBenet was allegedly present in Bloomingdales, it seems natural if she purchases a pack for Jenny that JonBenet should recieve a pack too?

From memory, when Patsy had her memory loss about the size-6's, she had yet to be told, no size-12's were found.

Maybe its just some legal advice she received, so she could revise at a later date, with some enhancement of her memory?

After all, if she purchased the size-6's, then obviously they will be in JonBenet's underwear drawer, and Patsy will know in advance that they will be found, contrast this with the size-12's!

I would go for Patsy helping JonBenet to bath and dress on 12/25. I can see Patsy dressing JonBenet in the Bloomingdales Wednesday size-6 pair, along with the rest of her clothing, helping her with her hair etc.

Another aspect to this feature of the case is, I would assume Patsy paid for the underwear using either a Store Charge Card or her own Credit Card, so how come BPD could not get those records either from the bank or from Bloomingdales?

Now if what you suggest above is 100% correct and that Patsy possibly did not purchase size-6 Bloomingdales, then all bets are off, regarding who did what and why wrt staging.

Not unless JonBenet was wearing a non-Bloomingdales Wednesday pair, which would mean this Day Of the Week pair would be missing from her underwear drawer?

I reckon one of these two scenarios is indeed the case, and that this is why we have never been told anything about the underwear taken from JonBenet's drawer. i.e. there will be two missing pairs of Wednesday Day Of the Week underwear, e.g. 1 size-6, & 1 size-12?


.

Patsy made TWO trips to NYC in the weeks before JB''s death. One trip included the kids, the other did not. Nedra and DP babysat JB and BR that time. (This is the time during which JB appeared in a Christmas parade riding in a car/float, and she had won another title - I believe it was "Little Miss Christmas". This pageant was the source of the Santa Bear which JB received when she participated in the pageant and which Patsy denied knowledge of.
We don't know how Patsy paid for the Bloomies panties. But you can be sure that LE NEVER tried to determine (via credit card check, store records, etc) whether she bought to sets or one. Like so much of what the Rs claimed, police sort of just dropped the ball on it.

 

[UKGuy]

Patsy made TWO trips to NYC in the weeks before JB''s death. One trip included the kids, the other did not. Nedra and DP babysat JB and BR that time. (This is the time during which JB appeared in a Christmas parade riding in a car/float, and she had won another title - I believe it was "Little Miss Christmas". This pageant was the source of the Santa Bear which JB received when she participated in the pageant and which Patsy denied knowledge of.
We don't know how Patsy paid for the Bloomies panties. But you can be sure that LE NEVER tried to determine (via credit card check, store records, etc) whether she bought to sets or one. Like so much of what the Rs claimed, police sort of just dropped the ball on it.

DeeDee249,
This is what makes me think it really is BDI. LE dropped the ball in so many interviews, along with no follow up.

So why have they never released any details regarding JonBenet's underwear? I'll bet the R's were wired to return the size-12's otherwise they would have a big hole in their IDI claims?


.

 

[anne11]

Could the new size 6 bloomies have been placed in the luggage (on the guest room bed), cannot imagine many people would want to pack badly stained (even smelly) underwear .

 

[midwest mama]

Could the new size 6 bloomies have been placed in the luggage (on the guest room bed), cannot imagine many people would want to pack badly stained (even smelly) underwear .

Having packed some things for MI in a plastic bag, and sent some things for John to pack into the plane on Christmas day (which was never searched), it would be highly possible that newer, properly sized underwear for JB would have been packed for MI, as well as more packed into the trip luggage, as you suggest.

That might explain why mostly fecal stained smaller sized underwear was left behind to be confiscated by LE.

 

[UKGuy]

Having packed some things for MI in a plastic bag, and sent some things for John to pack into the plane on Christmas day (which was never searched), it would be highly possible that newer, properly sized underwear for JB would have been packed for MI, as well as more packed into the trip luggage, as you suggest.

That might explain why mostly fecal stained smaller sized underwear was left behind to be confiscated by LE.

midwest mama,
AHA!

Or why there might be no clean size-6 underwear for someone to redress JonBenet in. So the size-12's were commandeered?


.

 

[midwest mama]

midwest mama,
AHA!

Or why there might be no clean size-6 underwear for someone to redress JonBenet in. So the size-12's were commandeered?


.

Could be!! Someone would not have wanted JB to be found in anything that wasn't fresh?

Maybe the plan, if her good undies were already packed, was to put her in a pull-up in the morning to wear during the flight, cause they wanted to make sure she didn't have any travel accidents. The size 12's might have then been used as a 'covering' for the pull-up - some Mom's and kids do that to hide the pull-up - so they had to be at the ready.

Since JB's bed sheets were taken into custody with dried urine in them, can we consider this:

The Christmas morning photos of JB show her wearing a pink PJ set. Her pink PJ top was found in her bed on the 26th, but not the bottoms. Patsy claims JB's jams were tucked under her pillow for day storage.

If JB had on the pink PJ's Christmas morning - probably no urine, I'd bet she was wearing a pull-up from Dec 24-25, and no wet sheets on Christmas morning - Patsy would not have wanted to deal with them.

So, on Christmas night, JB went to bed after all, and must have wet the bed, since the sheets tested for dried urine? Having come from the White's, and maybe taking time for the pineapple snack, no one bothered to get her into a pull-up. Instead she wore the pink PJ bottoms over regular underwear and maybe even the red turtleneck, so she'd be ready more quickly for the morning flight?

Patsy could have either had her use the bathroom or trusted her to use it on her own (cops found a dirtied toilet and took a sample), and figured she'd be good until early morning cause they would be up and going so early. Then into a pull-up for the flight.

But, did JB awaken because of a wet bed, yell for someone to help her change out of the wet things? Or maybe she was changing herself into the pink nightgown when help heard her stirring and arrived.


I don't think I recall if the pink bottoms were ever found.

 

[UKGuy]

Could be!! Someone would not have wanted JB to be found in anything that wasn't fresh?

Maybe the plan, if her good undies were already packed, was to put her in a pull-up in the morning to wear during the flight, cause they wanted to make sure she didn't have any travel accidents. The size 12's might have then been used as a 'covering' for the pull-up - some Mom's and kids do that to hide the pull-up - so they had to be at the ready.

Since JB's bed sheets were taken into custody with dried urine in them, can we consider this:

The Christmas morning photos of JB show her wearing a pink PJ set. Her pink PJ top was found in her bed on the 26th, but not the bottoms. Patsy claims JB's jams were tucked under her pillow for day storage.

If JB had on the pink PJ's Christmas morning - probably no urine, I'd bet she was wearing a pull-up from Dec 24-25, and no wet sheets on Christmas morning - Patsy would not have wanted to deal with them.

So, on Christmas night, JB went to bed after all, and must have wet the bed, since the sheets tested for dried urine? Having come from the White's, and maybe taking time for the pineapple snack, no one bothered to get her into a pull-up. Instead she wore the pink PJ bottoms over regular underwear and maybe even the red turtleneck, so she'd be ready more quickly for the morning flight?

Patsy could have either had her use the bathroom or trusted her to use it on her own (cops found a dirtied toilet and took a sample), and figured she'd be good until early morning cause they would be up and going so early. Then into a pull-up for the flight.

But, did JB awaken because of a wet bed, yell for someone to help her change out of the wet things? Or maybe she was changing herself into the pink nightgown when help heard her stirring and arrived.


I don't think I recall if the pink bottoms were ever found.

midwest mama,
You could be correct, what you write makes sense. The pink bottoms have never ever been mentioned much, I've never seen them entered as evidence.

In a theory with more than one staging event, the missing pink bottoms would match with JonBenet's missing size-6 underwear, i.e. they were both removed in the same room, then disposed from that room? Speculating: there then followed further staging involving the pink nightgown, say in her bedroom, e.g. bloodstain on pillow, bloodstain on gown.

When this was revised again, to accomodate an abduction scenario the nightgown alike the partially opened gifts and her barbie doll, were dumped into the wine-cellar so to mask the original location?

.

 

[wengr]

In moo, this thread title - why would the R's stage, is the best question one could ask concerning this case. Because in moo, there are really only two thing that I accept as shown beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 - I believe PR wrote the note, and 2 - I believe PR was involved in staging. So if I believe PR was involved in staging, then the reason is of paramount importance. It seems bizarre to me that someone would stage like that in response to an accident or even a rage incident. It seems if one made the leap to decide to stage, they would stage an accident. There is also the issue of why one would cover for the other, and while there will always be various theories suggested for this, it seems to me that the KISS principle screams bdi as the answer to "why would the R's need to stage". moo.

 

[Nom de plume]

In moo, this thread title - why would the R's stage, is the best question one could ask concerning this case. Because in moo, there are really only two thing that I accept as shown beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 - I believe PR wrote the note, and 2 - I believe PR was involved in staging. So if I believe PR was involved in staging, then the reason is of paramount importance. It seems bizarre to me that someone would stage like that in response to an accident or even a rage incident. It seems if one made the leap to decide to stage, they would stage an accident. There is also the issue of why one would cover for the other, and while there will always be various theories suggested for this, it seems to me that the KISS principle screams bdi as the answer to "why would the R's need to stage". moo.

BBM IMO, the KISS principle would have been staging an accident. They went out of their way to do everything possible to avoid keeping it simple!

I believe that the head blow came first, therefore an accident would have been easy to claim. The only reason to stage, IMO was to cover up sexual abuse.

I've heard or read somewhere that just prior to death from that type of head injury, the victim would have something along the lines of a seizure (may not be the correct term) because the brain is starving for oxygen.

Did they think she was dead from the blow to the head? Was the strangulation done in a panic as she was having this "seizure" and not for staging purposes?

It's also possible that JBR never reached that point and the one strangling her believed she was already dead and it was strictly for staging.

 

[wengr]

BBM IMO, the KISS principle would have been staging an accident. They went out of their way to do everything possible to avoid keeping it simple!

I believe that the head blow came first, therefore an accident would have been easy to claim. The only reason to stage, IMO was to cover up sexual abuse.

Yep, agreed. If we had a time machine, the first thing that I would do upon the finding of the body would be to check the household's male occupant's genetalia for bite marks.

 

[midwest mama]

Yep, agreed. If we had a time machine, the first thing that I would do upon the finding of the body would be to check the household's male occupant's genetalia for bite marks.

Thank you for finally making this statement. I have long wondered about an oral situation because of the reference to the possibility of blood tinged saliva on JB's cheek. According to the autopsy, there was no sign of blood in the ear or nasal canals, or in the stomach or esophagus. Or abrasions noted around the lips or mouth.

A scream and a head bash might have been very explainable reactions to a genital bite, especially if a flashlight was being used for illumination at the time.

I guess being a granny I have been a bit too prudish:blushing: to bring up the possibility of JB being involved in a reciprocal situation of sex play with male members in her family, even though her mother stated she was a flirt, and the photos by Judith Phillips portray her displaying suggestive facial portraits.

Even so, she was still a 6 year old, very viciously murdered, and at that age should never have been in a situation of being involved in sexual abuse or activity. Her parents and family should have protected and promoted her childhood innocence, which they clearly did not. She was a victim. And it led to a horrible circumstance.

 

[midwest mama]

BBM IMO, the KISS principle would have been staging an accident. They went out of their way to do everything possible to avoid keeping it simple!

I believe that the head blow came first, therefore an accident would have been easy to claim. The only reason to stage, IMO was to cover up sexual abuse.

I've heard or read somewhere that just prior to death from that type of head injury, the victim would have something along the lines of a seizure (may not be the correct term) because the brain is starving for oxygen.

Did they think she was dead from the blow to the head? Was the strangulation done in a panic as she was having this "seizure" and not for staging purposes?

It's also possible that JBR never reached that point and the one strangling her believed she was already dead and it was strictly for staging.

Should we remember in discussing the reasoning/timing of the injuries as related to staging, that according to info in Kolar's book, and in the opinion of others previously, there could be as much as 90 minutes time lapse between the bash and the ligature strangling?

Also, IMHO we cannot totally discount the possibility of some type of manual strangulation being a precedent to the head bash, and then the final ligature strangulation covering up the signs of the first strangulation. There are justifiable theories and professional opinions to support the 3-fold attempt on JB's life, even if part of it was rage or accident rather than intentional.

 

[wengr]

Thank you for finally making this statement. I have long wondered about an oral situation because of the reference to the possibility of blood tinged saliva on JB's cheek. According to the autopsy, there was no sign of blood in the ear or nasal canals, or in the stomach or esophagus. Or abrasions noted around the lips or mouth.

A scream and a head bash might have been very explainable reactions to a genital bite, especially if a flashlight was being used for illumination at the time.

Yes, agreed on all points. I would add that if one considers the relative positions of the participants, then the bash on the back of the head is to be expected. I personally have no reason to believe that the damage to the back of the skull is indicative of the killer being behind JB. It's pretty much where I'd expect it to be when striking at hip level. But I wonder if it was the flashlight. The weapon could very easily have gone the way of the tape/cord/paper I suspect, and if the weapon was actually the flashlight, then why would it have not gone the way of the tape/cord/paper?

 

[midwest mama]

Yes, agreed on all points. I would add that if one considers the relative positions of the participants, then the bash on the back of the head is to be expected. I personally have no reason to believe that the damage to the back of the skull is indicative of the killer being behind JB. It's pretty much where I'd expect it to be when striking at hip level. But I wonder if it was the flashlight. The weapon could very easily have gone the way of the tape/cord/paper I suspect, and if the weapon was actually the flashlight, then why would it have not gone the way of the tape/cord/paper?

Logical thinking. Note, I commented "a" flashlight. I agree with you that the actual bash weapon was either removed before the police arrived, or carefully cleaned and replaced to it's original position in the area of the crime. I am skeptical that the maglite found on the counter was much more than a red herring, but since it was clean of prints, cannot totally rule it out. There has been much comment over the years about both children having flashlights in their bedrooms, and often parents keep flashlights near their children's rooms or in their own bedrooms for checking on kids (or possible 'burglars') in the night.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd to think a household the size of the Ramseys' would only have one flashlight in it?? There were some line items blacked out on the search warrants that were released to the public.