Newcomers to this blog are advised to begin with the first two posts, Just the Facts, Ma'am and Case Solved, which explain in very general terms why I believe I've solved this case. Some important questions are answered in the following post, Misunderstandings, Misconceptions, Misdirections. After that feel free to browse whatever topics might interest you (see blog archive).

NB: If anyone has trouble posting a comment, email it to doktorgosh (at) live.com, and I'll post it for you.

Notice to readers of my Kindle book: I recently noticed that, on certain devices (though not all), the Table of Contents begins with Chapter One and omits the Introduction and Preface. Since the Introduction is especially important, I urge everyone to make sure to begin reading at the very beginning of the book, not the first chapter in the Table of Contents. Thank you.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Folkore 2 -- The Oversized Panties Saga

At some point someone on one of the Internet forums decided to investigate reports that JonBenet had been redressed in panties several sizes too large, labeled with the word "Wednesday." Patsy had been questioned about these panties, since the investigators were trying to determine whether they might have been brought into the house by an intruder. During Patsy's interview of August 28, 2000, the interviewer, a Mr. Morrissey, makes this clear. Here is the relevant dialogue:


Q. And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something -- A. Right. Q. - that was in the house. A. Yes. Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house? A. Yes. Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties? A. Correct.
What Patsy appears to be saying in this interview is that the panties in question were purchased by her (as a gift for another child, named Jenny) and were already in the house, meaning they were not brought into the house by an intruder and could not be used as intruder evidence. This seems straightforward enough, but for some reason a major piece of Ramsey case folklore has developed around the status of these panties and whether Patsy lied about them.

I must confess I don't completely understand why this became such a huge issue for so many and why the oversized panties are continually being raised, again and again, over the years, as sure fire evidence that Patsy was involved in the death of her daughter, but perhaps there is something I've missed. To get an idea of all the time and effort that's been expended on this issue, I'll direct you to the following incredibly complex and convoluted thread on the Forums for Justice Forum, as initiated by a poster called "cynic": The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties

Cynic quotes extensively from Patsy's 2000 interview, but it's not clear what the point is. Apparently Patsy is confused by all the questioning and tries to explain that 1. she herself never dressed JonBenet in such panties and 2. she didn't regard the size difference as all that important.

We are then shown side by side photos of little girls in which the two sizes are compared, followed by sizing tables illustrating the considerable difference between the two sizes.

According to Cynic, a poster named Jayelles actually went to the trouble of purchasing
from Bloomingdale’s an identical pair of size 4-6 “Days of the week” panties and photographed them alongside a pair of 12-14 panties. The disparity in size is striking. My wife purchased size 6, 12 and 14 children’s underwear, and I photographed them. The brand is Hanes and the difference is similarly striking.
We are then treated to no less than 12 full color photos of pairs of panties of different sizes.

What is the point of all this? Well, supposedly Patsy has been caught in a lie: "Is PR telling the truth, or was she caught in a lie? Is the size difference minor as PR seems to suggest?" Well, the size difference is apparently not minor, or so it seems. So Patsy was lying about that difference. OR Patsy just got confused. OR Cynic and Jayelles got confused and were looking in the wrong places for the wrong things. Hard to say.

According to cynic:
PR lied at least three times during the course of questioning regarding the oversized panties.
• She tried to say that Jenny was a “little girl” and imply that her panty size would not be terribly dissimilar to JonBenet.
• She tried to say that she commonly bought size 8-10 panties for JBR, thereby making the size 12 – 14 panties seem less unusual
• She tried to say that the size 12 – 14 panties were only “a little bit big”
Additionally, I don’t believe that JonBenet picked out and wore these panties on Christmas day as PR suggested, nor do I believe that PR had any plans for those panties other than giving them to her niece. I believe that the panties were wrapped as a gift, but something happened which changed those plans, something which necessitated removing the Wednesday panties from the package in which they were wrapped and redressing JBR in them.
Interesting. But sorry, once again, I'll ask the question: WHAT IS THE POINT? If Patsy was in fact lying, why would she have lied? What purpose would have been served by her lying about the relative size of two pairs of panties she claims were already in the house, thus not introduced by some intruder? If she didn't want the police to know JonBenet had been redressed, she could simply have said she herself had dressed her in those oversized panties, pleading absent mindedness or that she'd been too pressed for time to notice.

Patsy seemed to think JonBenet might have put those panties on herself, but as far as I can tell, she never claimed she knew for sure whether JonBenet was wearing them prior to the murder. If she didn't want anyone to know JonBenet had been redressed, then why wouldn't she have simply assured the police that the oversized panties had been on all the time? It sounds to me like Patsy was simply confused and not sure why she is being asked all these questions about different sized panties. I can't imagine why her effort to minimize the difference between these sizes would be seen as a lie; and if it was a lie, then I see no reason for it.

If her attacker did in fact redress JonBenet in panties that were inappropriately sized (and that does seem to have been the case), one has to ask, first, what motive an intruder would have to do that? Sorry, but I can't think of any, can you? So, second, if there was no intruder (there wasn't), then who would be more likely to select panties of the wrong size -- her mother? or her father? If Patsy was the one who redressed her, we can assume she'd know enough to use the correct size, especially since the oversized panties were located in a different place from the others and were still in their original package. John, on the other hand, wasn't like to be aware of any of this, and not being familiar with JonBenet's underwear preferences, could easily have selected the wrong item from the wrong package. So if the story of the oversized panties tells us anything at all, it suggests that John rather than Patsy was the one who redressed his daughter's corpse. And to his credit, cynic seems willing to at least consider this possibility, though Patsy is still his first preference, of course.

But for the great majority of forum posters, the folklore of this case is inextricably tied to Patsy, John is strictly off limits. So time after time the oversized panties are offered as proof positive that Patsy Ramsey murdered her daughter, penetrated her vagina with a paintbrush handle, strangled her with a garotte, and then, for some reason never actually explained, deliberately chose extra large panties to redress her in, before settling down to compose her literary masterpiece, the famous "ransom" note.



57 comments:

  1. Team Ramsey knew everything about the autopsy report within hours (if not sooner) because info was being leaked from the DA's office to team Ramsey. So, months and months before Patsy's first interview, Team R knew JB had been wearing size 12 Bloomies.

    This means there was plenty of time to come up with an explanation, or a lie if you prefer.

    Patsy knew the questions about the size 12s were coming. How far in advance of the interview she was informed is an open question, but she knew before sitting down that such questions would be asked.

    Patsy tells investigators that the size 12s were in Johnbenet's dresser drawer, and that they'd been purchased for the purpose of giving them to Jenny, but for some reason ended up being given to JB, and that JB would sometimes wear them. (If my recall is correct)

    But here's the thing, Patsy likely knew that the police knew whether or not those panties were in the drawer. So why would she say they were, knowing they weren't, and knowing that the police knew what the truth was?

    My conclusion is that Patsy was telling the truth, so far as she knew it. Whether or not they were just a little big or way too big can be called a lie, or a judgement call, but whether or not they were in the dresser drawer isn't a matter of opinion. They were, or were not, and the police knew, and Patsy knew the police knew. It's the kind of lie that can be proven, not just conjectured. Why would she lie under those circumstances?

    I agree that a man would be less likely to know girl's panty sizes, though John wasn't inexperienced seeing grown women in panties, so I'd have to think he'd know they were too big. Which leaves me wondering if they were selected for the Wednesday feature?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Why would she lie under those circumstances?" Precisely! So what is the point, and why all this huge fuss?

      I tend to avoid speculation regarding what actually happened that night, because we have no way of knowing the exact circumstances and what the attacker might have been thinking. It's hard to understand why this person, whether an intruder or Patsy or John, would have felt the need to redress the body of his/her victim in fresh panties. However, if she WAS redressed in these oversized bloomies, and that was some sort of mistake, then it's the sort of mistake a man, not a woman, and certainly not Patsy, who was so knowledgeable regarding every aspect of JonBenet's wardrobe, would have made.

      Delete
  2. Wednesday, 1996 = December 25. The date of death on JB's gravestone. The date engraved into the bracelet she received as a gift that year. The date of a ritual called "The Last Bulb on the Christmas Tree".

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was certainly not suggesting any satanic rituals. Just that John may have thought "Wednesday" was of some importance - if he was the one who redressed her.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I used to wonder if the person who put the size 12s on JBR was worried about someone at the White's party having helped JBR in the bathroom. The helper would know the underwear said "Wednesday". But of course, that can't be it, because the helper would also know they were (or were not) the right size.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't really followed the Ramsey case for the past few years and although I'd heard another poster had developed the "big Bloomies" experiment, thisis he first tme I'd seen it.

    You really have to see these garments to appreciate how enormous they are. My daughter was approximately Jonbenet's age when I did my original experiment. However she was pretty much the same size as those listed in Jonbenet's pm, something which I consider to be more important. She is now just weeks away from being a teenager and the 12-14 Bloomies are still too big for her. They are what we would call "big pants" in the UK and I know there is no way she will ever wear them.

    I'd be happy to send you a pair if you are interested so that you can see for yourself just how big they are and how unlikely it is that a petite six year old would choose to wear them.

    Jayelles

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much for posting here under your own "hat", Jayelles. Good. Maybe you can help us better understand this piece of evidence. I appreciate all your careful sleuthing on this matter, but I've never been able to get the point being made, i.e., what the oversized bloomies might mean.

      I have no reason to doubt you on the discrepancy of sizes, you've made that case very competently and very clearly. What I don't understand is how this works as evidence that Patsy is the one who redressed JonBenet, or that she was involved in any aspect of the crime or coverup. Also, what exactly did Patsy lie about? As far as I can tell, she said it was possible JonBenet put those on herself, but I don't see anywhere in her testimony that she knew that for a fact.

      The simplest explanation I can think of is that JonBenet might have wet the bed and decided to change while half asleep, not noticing the discrepancy in size at the time, since she would have practically been sleepwalking.

      Assuming for the moment that Patsy was the one who attacked her, we have to ask why she would have wanted to change her panties in the first place. What sort of evidence could she have possibly wanted to discard? After all, she was the mother, so any traces of her DNA could have a perfectly innocent explanation, no?

      On the other hand, if John was the attacker, then possibly some of his semen could have gotten onto her panties, in which case he'd have had a very good reason to get rid of them. So if anyone would have had a motive to redress her it would have been John, not Patsy. (An intruder could simply have taken them with him -- no reason to rummage through drawers for a replacement.) And of the two, John is far more likely to have selected the wrong size, since he could easily have assumed all the panties were the same size, and he would certainly have been both hurried and distracted.

      Am I missing something here, Jayelles? If so, please clarify. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. There are two main sizing schemes for underpants in the US: girl and woman. Child sizes are scaled by waist, women's sizes are scaled by hip. A size 12 child underpants would not actually be enormous on a tween. I suspect you are using the wrong size scale- i.e. putting size 12 woman underpants on a child. They are not the same. Also, a size 12/14 is not the same thing as a size 12. A double size is manufactured to fit both the larger and smaller size, which means the size is between both of those, and the fabric has a lot of give.

      You say that there is no way your child will ever wear them- why, because you sincerely think she will never get any bigger than she is now? That's totally illogical.

      Delete
  6. I look forward to Jayelles' reply. Meanwhile, a few thoughts.

    First, there is no reason for either JR or PR (or BR) to explain why JB is found wearing 12/14 panties. Their story, in a nutshell, is they put JB to bed, went to bed themselves, woke up the next morning to find a RN, etc. etc. There is no reason they should know why JB is wearing these any more than they'd know why she was clubbed, abused, garrotted, bundled, placed in the WC, etc.

    Second, the story the Rs tell at the interviews also includes PR taking off JB's black velvet trousers and putting the longjohns on her. I think we can assume that if JB is wearing the 12/14s at this point, PR would notice them.

    Third, as already mentioned, it's hard to see why PR would lie about 12/14s being in the dresser when the police can state factually whether they were/were not there. Usually one lies when there is a chance of getting away with it. The facts (assuming the police are telling the truth) flatly contradict PR's statement. That would look bad in front of a GJ or jury. PR knows ahead of time the question is coming, yet simply states that the 12/14s were in the dresser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must admit I'm confused regarding this issue, since it's never been clear to me what the police expected Patsy to tell them. If Patsy's version contradicts what the police say they found, then the contradiction is relevant only if it has some bearing on the case, and sorry but I fail to see what bearing it could have. Patsy would certainly have had no motive for redressing JonBenet, so what's the point?

      My best guess is that Patsy was probably telling the truth, and the police very likely just lost track of some of the evidence. Not surprising in view of the long long list of items they collected. This was not the most carefully conducted investigation and they even forgot to collect the clothing John and Patsy had been wearing, so it's not difficult to assume they could have lost track of some things or just gotten confused about what they had and didn't have.

      I agree that Patsy would have had no reason to lie, so it seems clear that either she or the police simply got confused. Possibly both.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if the police were not asking about the size 12s so much because they genuinely wondered if an intruder could have brought them with him (because I really doubt the police put much stock in the IDI theory) but rather wanted to prevent either JR or PR from later making such a claim. If PR was pinned down in the interview, stating she'd bought the panties, then they could not claim an intruder brought them with him if the case had gone to trial.

      Delete
    3. DocG November 4, 2012 at 4:12 AM

      “I must admit I'm confused regarding this issue, since it's never been clear to me what the police expected Patsy to tell them. If Patsy's version contradicts what the police say they found, then the contradiction is relevant only if it has some bearing on the case, and sorry but I fail to see what bearing it could have. Patsy would certainly have had no motive for redressing JonBenet, so what's the point?

      “My best guess is that Patsy was probably telling the truth, and the police very likely just lost track of some of the evidence. Not surprising in view of the long long list of items they collected. This was not the most carefully conducted investigation and they even forgot to collect the clothing John and Patsy had been wearing, so it's not difficult to assume they could have lost track of some things or just gotten confused about what they had and didn't have.

      “I agree that Patsy would have had no reason to lie, so it seems clear that either she or the police simply got confused. Possibly both.”

      I know your post on this subject and the discussion following it are over a couple of years old, but after reading through it I don’t see where anyone has fully answered some of the questions that are brought up. It’s easy when the reason for a discrepancy in statements is not known to simply dismiss it as “she must have been confused”. (Steve Thomas did the same thing with Burke when his account of JonBenet walking up the stairs after they got home from the Whites’ party was different from his parents’ account of her being asleep and carried up the stairs.) But unless you are determined to make this seem like something done by an intruder (you’re not, DocG, and neither am I), it’s obvious that the Ramseys were not truthful in their accounts. The only uncertainty is the reason for the deceit and who is being covered for. You don’t think Patsy was involved in the original crime, but surely you must realize that she was at least complicit after-the-fact (at some point) in helping with the coverup.


      • Why were the Ramseys asked about the oversized panties in the August, 2000, interview?

      The size 12-14 Bloomies found on JonBenet’s body was not mentioned in the Autopsy Report. I’d suggest this was one of those things that investigators intentionally held back from public knowledge, which is a common practice for them to do with evidentiary details until they have a suspect who has information not known by the public. While the Ramsey Grand Jury was hearing testimony, word of the oversized panties leaked out and the information was published in the April 20, 1999, issue of The Globe. Then in August, 2000, since it had become public knowledge, the Ramseys were questioned about them. Understand that when suspects are questioned, investigators don’t necessarily expect their answers to be truthful; but how they answer and exactly what they say (and don’t say) can open new areas of questioning. It also serves the purpose of getting the person on record with their answers in case there is conflicting evidence unknown to the person being questioned.

      Patsy knew that JonBenet did not wear size 12-14. Investigators only found size 4-6 panties in the house belonging to JonBenet. There were no size 8-10 (or 6-8, for that matter) anywhere in the house to be found, yet when questioned Patsy claimed that this was what she “typically bought for her”. That’s called “hedging” -- trying to make it seem like less of an exaggerated oversize for her to be found in a size 12-14. How could she simply be “confused” about what size panties she typically bought for her? (She wasn’t.)

      (I’ll finish in a second post because of character limitation.)

      Delete
    4. (cont.)

      “I can think of only one reason anyone would want to redress her in fresh panties, and that is because the original panties contained semen.”

      • Why was JonBenet redressed in oversized panties?

      From information in the AR and information that came out afterwards, we can surmise that there was a significant enough amount of blood from the genital injuries that her legs had to be wiped down. That being the case, it is very likely there might also have been blood on the panties she was wearing at the time of the sexual assault. Whoever is responsible for altering the crime scene tried to hide the fact that the sexual assault had happened. Wiping the blood off her thighs and her genitals and removing bloodied panties was done to hide this part of the crime. This of course speaks to the fact that an intruder is not responsible for the crime. An intruder wouldn’t have cared that this evidence was obvious. Only a family member would want this to not be known, and that was because they didn’t want the molestation to be associated with her death. An intruder wouldn’t have cared.

      As for why the oversized Bloomies were used instead of another pair of her own size 4-6, I can only guess that it was because they were conveniently stored in the basement where the staging was done. They were wrapped up as a gift to be given to Patsy’s niece later in Georgia along with other presents for out-of-town relatives and Burke’s upcoming birthday. Whoever chose to put those large sized panties on her did so probably because they wanted the “Wednesday” day-of-the-week to be on her and knew that there was a fresh pair wrapped up right there in the basement.


      "If you want to argue that Patsy was consciously being deceptive, then you have to explain WHY she would have wanted to deceive anyone about those panties. What would she have had to gain by misleading the investigators? Sorry, but I can't think of any reason, but perhaps you can."

      • Why would Patsy be deceptive about the whole subject?

      Why be deceptive about anything (the panties, the Maglite, the pineapple, Burke being asleep)? The reason is guilty knowledge and distancing. Even if they knew JonBenet had eaten pineapple, they denied it because it contradicted the narrative that she was asleep from the time before they arrived home that night (distancing for the family). Burke was asleep through the entire night and therefore didn’t hear anything and didn’t know anything (distancing for Burke). They didn’t recognize photos of the Maglite (guilty knowledge of how it had been used during the night).

      Delete
    5. Sorry, but "guilty knowledge" doesn't cut it for me. Too abstract. If both of them knew about the pineapple snack, then there would have been no reason to lie about it. It could easily have been incorporated in their story. If only one knew about it, however, then there would be reason to lie.

      By the same token, if Patsy didn't want the police to know JonBenet had been redressed she could simply have testified that, yes, she'd been dressed in the oversize pair from the start. Instead, she downplays the difference in size, which tells me she is just trying to understand what the police are telling her. Before accusing her of lying, you need to explain what she would have gained by lying. "Guilty knowledge" is meaningful only if you can establish that the person in question is actually guilty.

      Delete
    6. Hi, DocG. Thank you for responding so quickly. I’ll take responsibility for not being clear enough. “Guilty knowledge” and “distancing” are two different concepts and two different reasons that a person might be deceptive. I don’t have an opinion as to whether or not either of the parents even knew about the pineapple. They may very well have not even known about it, or not have considered it to be something that would come back and bite them (grin). But here’s the significance of it. In order to remove the entire family from any question of involvement, the narrative was that JonBenet fell asleep in the car, was carried up to her room still sleeping, and was dressed and left in her bed asleep. That was the story told and they stuck to it. That story was their “distancing” themselves from what happened. The reasoning here being that if she was sleeping the entire time, no one in the family could be responsible for anything that happened. But discovery of the pineapple in her duodenum contradicted that narrative. Pineapple at that point in her digestive tract proved that she was awake at some time after they arrived home. Had the ME done the tests he should have done in the 10 minutes he spent examining her body in the home (smh), the TOD would be more specific and would have given a more accurate time that the pineapple was consumed. As it is though, there are only estimates about the timeframe. Nevertheless, the general timeframes are enough to dispute the Ramsey narrative about her being sound asleep and counteract their attempt at “distancing” themselves.

      “Guilty knowledge” is the reason for their denying knowledge of the Maglite. I don’t know how it was used (I don’t believe it was the weapon that caused the skull fracture), but the fact that they denied recognizing it makes me think it was used somehow during the staging.

      We can both speculate about why she was redressed in the size 12-14 Bloomies, but we’ll never know for sure why. But because of the absurdity of the idea of her wearing them, we should know that SOMEONE redressed her in them. The panties she was wearing during the assault most likely had blood on them and needed to be replaced to hide the fact that she had been assaulted. Whether you think that Patsy was involved in the staging or that she became complicit with John later before she was questioned, she obviously is being disingenuous in her answers about the size JonBenet typically wore. This is because of the “guilty knowledge” she had about why JonBenet was redressed (regardless of whether or not SHE put them on her).

      Delete
  7. Having raised 3 daughters here are the presumptions that I could make about the bloomers.
    Brand new girl panties look huge until they are washed and dried and then they shrink tremendously. Maybe PR did purchase them for "Jenny" but it's possible that JBR found them or needed them herself. Maybe she was out of clean undies in her own drawer. It sounds like PR thought the undies were in JBRs drawer and that it was no big deal. As a mother I would have also thought it no big deal if my daughter had found a new pack of underwear and put them on even if they were the wrong size.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just to clear up one small point - "a poster named Jayelles actually went to the trouble of purchasing..."

    It really wasn't all that much trouble. I was on vacation, shopping in Bloomingdales at the time and the imfamous Bloomies were everywhere. There was literally no escape from them! There were stands of them at the top of the escalator, around the clothing despartment and right beside the pay point. One thing I have always been at pains to explain is that the Bloomies are part of Bloomingdale's "souvenir" range of goods - i.e. items which are specially commissioned for the store. As far as purchasing them is concerned, the only "trouble" I went to was to lift the packets and lay them on the counter :-)

    Okay with regard to JonBenet, it has been a while since I've given any thought to the case, but I think what really stood out for me was the fact that the 12-14 Bloomies would not have stayed up on JonBenet and the crotch would actually have dangled to her knees. These would not just have been slightly baggy knickers. They legholes would have been absolutely enormous on her. You see, although I posted photos of the Bloomies on my very amateurish dummy, my daughter did actually try them on (and over a leotard) and they just slid to her pelvis her as soon as she moved. I simply cannot see any six year old keeping them on even if she did try them on in the first place. Patsy recounted her little run in with Jonbenet over what she was going to wear so JonBenet was evidently clothes conscious.

    What really took me by surprise though was the fact that Patsy acknowledged that JonBenet was wearing them. I don't have any Ramsey files to hand now but had she expressed surprise that JonBenet was wearing them, it would have made a lot more sense to me. Patsy was very image conscious - a woman who paid hundreds of dollars to have her daughter's clothes custom made. She spent a lot on hairdressers and professional make-up. Her attention to detail was meticulous. Wearing grossly outsized knickers is something we associate with comedy and/or poverty.

    The Big Bloomies would not only have looked ridiculous, they would also have been impractical and uncomfortable. IMO, they were put on JonBenet by someone who didn't have a clue (i.e. a male) or someone in a blind panic. I can't really see a psychopathic intruder being that bothered to search for a replacement pair of knickers. I doubt she wore them when she was alive.

    As far as I am concerned, they remain a mystery. I recall that at the time, jameson's crew were at pains to deny that they could possibly be as large as I was portraying them. The arguments against the experiment were all along the lines of auggesting that my daughter was a stick insect or that Bloomindales had changed the product or that I had the wrong size/style. These arguments all indicate that people simply couldn't believe that JonBenet would have been wearing such outsized underwear - which is entirely the point!

    To the person who says that the underwear shrinks through washing. I can assure you that these do not shrink and in fact, they have actually stretched over time. At the time I did the experiment, there were comments suggesting that my daughter must be abnormally thin/small - such was the disbelief at the generous sizing of the Bloomies underwear. My daughter was and is still manufacturer/average size. I have only ever bought her clothes in her actual age size (if that makes sense). The 4-6 Bloomies didn't fit her till she was 6 (she was 3 when I purchased them) but they fitted her for a long time.

    Incidentally, I also have the 8-10 Bloomies (unopened and which I had completely forgotten about). They would probably fit her now.

    As I said previously, I don't really follow the case any more. I came across this blog when I googled Jim Kolar's new book. I think the media have an awful lot to answer for in manipulating public perceptions of criminal cases.

    Jayelles

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is very possible that the product changed. On the Bloomingdale's website now, Bloomies are not available in numbered sizes, only letter sizes.

      Aside from that, you have some serious misconceptions about sizing! The sizes for children's clothes are not "age size(d)". They are sized based on body measurements, not age. (if they were, though, or if you really thought they were, that would indicate to you that your daughter is unusually small.)

      Also, there is no such thing as "manufacturer/average size." That is just not how sizing works. Every manufacturer and every line have a different size, and those typically vary by style. For example, if you go to a shop that sells one brand of jeans, but that brand has 5 different cuts of jeans, every one of those cuts will be sized differently. Size charts vary from approximate to wildly inaccurate.

      Also, if no one has worn the underpants, I don't see how it is possible that they have stretched out over time. Underpants do not stretch sitting unworn in a box.

      Delete
  9. By the time of the first interviews, there is no reason for PR not to acknowledge that JB was found in size 12/14s. Nor was there any reason to express surprise. Team Ramsey must have known this since the day of the autopsy - the DA's office was an information conduit to Team Ramsey. All questions the Ramseys answered were submitted in writing ahead of time. So, PR already knew about the 12/14s, knew the questions were coming, and knew the police were trying to make something of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By the time of the first interviews, there is no reason for PR not to acknowledge that JB was found in size 12/14s. Nor was there any reason to express surprise."

      The two are not mutually exclusive. Patsy might have learned that JonBenet was found in them, but still unaware as to how she came to be wearing them.

      As I said, I'm very rusty on this. What surprised me was Patsy's efforts to justify JonBenet wearing them. To debate this point I'd need to read through everything again and I really have no desire to do that. I am done with the Ramsey case. I only commented to offer DocG a pair of the 12-14 Bloomies so that he could see for himself how huge they are.

      Jayelles

      Delete
    2. OK, thanks very much for this clarification, Jayelles. You've made it very clear how unlikely it is that JonBenet would have been wearing the 12-14 bloomies when she went to bed that night. In view of this, it certainly seems likely that she was redressed in the oversized bloomies by her attacker. That in itself is certainly a significant clue, so your research was definitely worthwhile.

      But how does this relate to Patsy, and what does her testimony in this regard tell us about her possible involvement? And again, I'll reiterate: if Patsy was the attacker I can see no reason for her to want to discard the original panties and replace them, nor can I see any reason for her to have gotten confused and replaced them with a grossly oversized pair.

      At one point in her testimony, it does seem as though she's saying she knew JonBenet was wearing the size 12-14s: "A. I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on."

      If we take this literally, however, it's inconsistent with the rest of her testimony, where she denies knowing for sure what JonBenet was wearing. My guess is that the above quote got mistranscribed and should read: "I am sure that I put A package of underwear in her bathroom . . ."

      It IS true, however, that Patsy underplays the importance of the size difference in a manner that does sound suspicious, and we need to ask why she would have wanted to do that. And in this case, her prevarication (I wouldn't call it lying) is consistent with other instances in which she appears to have lied or bent the truth to protect John. And I'm wondering whether she might have been prompted in this respect by their legal team.

      I say this because clearly an intruder would have had no reason to change her. If his semen had gotten onto her panties, he could simply have pocketed them and taken them with him. No reason to rummage around in a drawer looking for a replacement pair. And as stated above, it's hard to see any reason for Patsy to have needed to change her, or for her to have chosen the wrong size.

      However, let us suppose John was her attacker, and some of his semen got onto her original panties. If all had gone according to the plan I've already outlined on this blog, that wouldn't have mattered, as he could easily have discarded them when he left the house to dump the body the evening of the 27th.

      When Patsy called 911, however, he was forced to abort that plan. So if JonBenet's body was still dressed in her original, semen-soiled panties when the police arrived, that would have posed a huge problem. If he'd simply removed them, then he might have feared the police would at some point have searched the house looking for them. But if he replaced them with fresh ones they'd have had no reason to do that.

      So it's possible that, at some time after the arrival of the police, John could have quickly rummaged in a drawer, found a pair of panties appropriately labeled "Wednesday," gone down to the basement (as he later admitted to having done), entered the windowless room and changed JonBenet, without realizing the fresh panties were the wrong size.

      This could explain why John might have been nervous about the police discovering the 12-14 bloomies and concluding that her attacker must have redressed her in them. Since there'd have been no reason for either an intruder or Patsy to do this, it might be used as evidence against HIM. Unless Patsy could be persuaded to minimize that difference and convince the police that JonBenet might have chosen those oversized bloomies herself.

      I realize this is a pretty convoluted explanation, but it's the only one I can think of that would explain Patsy's reluctance to admit that the oversized panties were inappropriate. Unless she just got flustered and wasn't sure what to say.

      Delete
  10. I assume she wore size 6 to the party, and the 6s needed to be disposed of for forensic reasons.

    The problem I always have is that the panties are covered by the long johns. Unless someone pulled down the long johns they couldn't tell if JB was wearing no panties, correct size panties, or absurdly large panties.

    I think it's likely that if JR was the abuser that he took the size 6s off prior to the wipe down. I can't see him putting them back on her at that point, risking forensic re-contamination of the body.

    So why the decision to "replace" the panties, no matter what size/day they were? It cannot have been for PR's benefit, because she isn't ever supposed to see JB's dead body, let alone what panties are on her. It doesn't matter how the police find her, with or w/o panties, either in a ravine 2 weeks after the murder, or in the WC after PR messes up JR's plan. The explanation for the 6s that are missing is the intruder took them with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you make an excellent point. Nevertheless, someone DID, apparently, replace her original panties with the 12-14 size panties, so there has to be some reason for that.

      The only explanation that makes any sense at all, at least to me, is that John would originally have simply left the soiled panties on her body, planning to clean everything up later, when he was alone. However, after the 911 call, he would have realized that he needed to remove them before the body was discovered by the police, which could have happened at any time. The problem was that once the body was found, and the absence of her panties was noticed, the police would have scoured the house for those missing panties. And they'd have searched him as well. So what to do with them, how to get rid of them as quickly as possible and where to hide them?

      However, if he replaced the original panties with a fresh pair, the police would have had no reason to search for missing panties, so he could safely dump them in the laundry or in her underwear drawer.

      Sure, the absent panties could have been attributed to "the intruder" taking them, but at the time there was NO evidence suggesting any intruder had actually been present, and the police had very early on seen "no sign of forced entry." So as far as John was concerned at the time, such an explanation would not have been sufficient to discourage the police from turning the house upside down looking for them. And if they found them, with traces of his semen on them, his goose was cooked for sure.

      Delete
    2. I can see that he might have been planning to do the clean up later, when he was alone. Then his plan is foiled by Patsy's unexpected 911 call. The "replacement" panties prevent a search for the missing size 6 panties- maybe.

      Hard to say whether or not the police would have searched for the "missing" panties or not. My guess is not. When the body was "found" and brought upstairs no one pulled down the long johns -appropriately, as the body is evidence. It's clear she's dead, and anything done to her will be revealed at autopsy. Pulling down the long johns and panties would have been contaminating the evidence. The same procedures would apply if the police found the body at say 6:15 am. The body wouldn't be moved from the WC until the coroner had arrived. The body would not have been tampered with - except perhaps to take a reading of vital signs, though death should have been obvious enough. The long johns would not have been pulled down. Of course BPD were not exactly sticklers for evidence procedure.

      The important thing, for JR, is to remove forensic evidence pointing to him. The panties should not have been discovered until autopsy in any case -and in fact were not. But perhaps JR isn't thinking along these lines.

      Delete
    3. You are going by what actually happened, which was that John himself wound up "discovering" the body around 1 PM, and the medical examiner took forever to arrive and do his job. However, John would have had no way of knowing things would turn out that way.

      Once the police arrived on the scene, then as far as he was concerned, the body could have been discovered at any time. And he might well have assumed it would be thoroughly examined shortly after discovery, either by the police or by a promptly arriving medical examiner.

      So if in fact his semen was on those panties, getting them off the body and replacing them would have been high priority. As it happened, he did have an opportunity to get rid of incriminating evidence when Arndt lost track of him later that morning, so it's possible he was able to dump the panties, along with some other things, during that period of, as I recall, at least 40 minutes or so. But by then they would already have been replaced by the oversized pair.

      Delete
    4. I'm going by what happened as the only available guide to how the police might have acted under another scenario - speculative I agree. Evidence preservation would seem to dictate handling the body as little as possible before the coroner arrived.

      We can't know what John might have supposed/imagined the police would do.
      Still I think it's worth asking why the police would pull her longjohns down, and if so, why they'd stop at the panties? IOWs I don't see the LJs or panties as a method of "hiding" anything. Either authorities were going to look, or they weren't, and if they looked they weren't going to stop looking once they saw the panties, they were going to look under those as well.

      I'm not sure why there is any need for panties under LJs, both are underwear. I don't have a daughter and my wife is from another culture so I have no idea if girls would wear panties under LJs. Boys wouldn't wear their whitey-tighties under LJs.

      If there had been semen on her original panties, getting them off would indeed be high priority. But why bother replacing them at all? If the police pull down the LJs they see either bare skin, or too-big panties. I don't think bare skin leads to "additional" suspicion. Too-big panties are puzzling.

      Is it your take that she was wiped down, then semen stained panties placed back on her? Or was the wiping down done at the time the panties were replaced?

      Delete
    5. The panties would need to be replaced because Patsy would have informed the police that JonBenet had been wearing panties that night. Which means they would have searched the house for the missing panties, and if these panties had John's semen on them, it would have been all over for him. But if she were found wearing panties, there'd have been no need for such a search. John could simply have planned on dumping the semen stained panties in the laundry.

      "Is it your take that she was wiped down, then semen stained panties placed back on her? Or was the wiping down done at the time the panties were replaced?"

      We have no way of knowing what actually happened. But it seems logical to assume that once the panties were removed, he would not have wanted to replace them, especially after it had been wiped down, as some semen from the panties could get back on the body that way.

      Prior to the 911 call, however, he would not have felt any need to replace the panties since his plan would have enabled him to get rid of them the following day. It was only after the 911 call that he would have realized he needed to deal with those panties right away. Whether they were still on the body at that time or whether they had already been removed doesn't matter. If he couldn't get them out of the house, then the only solution would have been to replace them, so no one would think to look for the original. In his haste, he selected the oversized pair.

      Then, as it happens, he had an opportunity to get rid the semen stained panties, along with other evidence, when Arndt was distracted later that morning and early PM.

      This is all very speculative, I admit. But it's the only scenario I can think of that could explain why she'd have been redressed like that.

      Delete
  11. I think that someday some young boy in the Ramsey's old neighborhood is going to find one of those wonderful secret hiding places that little boys so covet. Maybe, in this wonderful place, this young boy will find 1/3rd of a broken paintbrush, the bristle end, wrapped in a piece of cloth that is so old it crumbles to pieces in the boy's hand when he unwraps it to see what treasure has been carefully tucked inside. Picking up on the fact that this parcel was very precious to the kid that put it there in the unknowing way that only a young boy who has found the hiding place of hiding places can the boy will leave the material and paintbrush in his hiding place and never mention it to another soul.
    Regardless of what the previous young man who left those items in that wonderful secret hiding place may have done, he still very much loved the person that he did it too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. While I doubt delving into the panty saga will help us solve the case, it remains a puzzle. It's difficult not to wonder about it.

    A few things should be clear;

    1. In any combined effort between JR and PR, neither the size, nor the Wednesday marking are likely of any importance. If PR knows of the molestation, then either she, or JR, have complete freedom to go to JB's dresser and retrieve size 6 panties. The day of he week would not matter, as no one expects them to actually the day of the week feature religiously. If asked (would anyone ask?) why she was found in say Friday panties, they would simply explain she had another wetting incident and those panties were simply what was pulled from her drawer.

    2. The panties were selected because they were available in the basement and the redresser could not risk going up to JB's room for the right size from her dresser.

    The Wednesday pair may have been selected because it was Wednesday and the stagger thought the day of the week feature would be observed.

    Who seems more likely to make that assumption - the mother, who has almost w/o doubt dressed JB in panties not of the correct day, or the father who rarely if ever dressed his daughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The father gets my vote.

      Delete
    2. Yes, the father who was the A to Z, let's do it correctly neat freak - so said former housekeepers. MWMM

      Delete
  13. Just a question and a thought after reading the replies... Was it the size 12-14 Wednesday panties that contained the unknown male DNA? I assume the answer is "yes" so it begs the question in my mind, was the coroner/medical examiner,s (the person who undressed her for autopsy) DNA compared to the unknown DNA found on her panties and the waistband of her long johns?

    The same male DNA is found on both the panties and the long johns, right? But the panties are brand new out of the package so the only possible explanation is that the DNA is from either the person that changed her panties and put back on her long john's at the crime scene or someone that handled her body after it was discovered and removed from the home.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The DNA in question was highly fragmented and mixed with JonBenet's DNA in her blood, which as I recall stained the panties. A few years later some more tiny fragments of foreign "touch" DNA were found on her long johns, and this was in fact compatible with the DNA fragments in her blood, yes. I'm sure the medical examiner's DNA was also tested and did not match.

      However, it's important to realize that, if this was her attacker's DNA, one would expect much more of it would have been found, not these miniscule bits and pieces that required very sophisticated techniques to recover. It's far more likely that this was DNA from some random source that could have gotten onto JonBenet's hands at some point, possibly days ago, maybe when she was playing with a friend, or petted a dog, or whatever, and then at some point been transferred to her longjohns and her crotch when she touched them, prior to the attack. If John was the attacker, it could have been DNA that got onto his hands, or gloves, at some point, again from some random source. According to Kolar, DNA from both parents was also found on her clothing, but this was of course inconclusive, since she'd been in close contact with both parents prior to the attack. There were other bits of foreign "touch" DNA from other unidentified sources also found on her clothing, as reported by Kolar.

      Delete
  14. Your explanation is highly unlikely for any number of reasons. One, the DNA on her long johns came from skin cells but the DNA on her underwear came from what may be saliva or a cough or sneeze. The odds that JB picked up skin cells and saliva from the SAME unknown male by petting a dog let's say, and then managed to transfer only the skin cells to her long johns and only the spittle to her underwear have to be astronomical. Two, it is believed that JB's crotch area was wiped clean, was it not? Not very likely that this DNA travelled from a dog to JB's hands to her crotch, survived the wiping, and wound up on the brand new panties. Three, Patsy claims that she put the long johns on JB after she had been carried to her room sound asleep. Since you believe Patsy is just an innocent victim in all this then you must accept her version of how those long john's came to be on JB, right? When did JB transfer the skin cells to the waistband of her long johns?

    I'm sorry but there isn't a jury in this country that would accept your explanation for that DNA. Like it or not, this is powerful stuff. Juries love DNA evidence and place considerable weight on it. I would venture to say that if someone had been convicted of this crime prior to the DNA testing, this DNA evidence would be enough to overturn the conviction. That's how powerful it is.

    I am truly on the fence at this point, being new to the case. My gut tells me that Patsy killed JB. If not Patsy, then John. The intruder theory is last on my list as there are so many problems with it. But you seem so fixated on your JR did it theory that you seem to just brush off anything that doesn't fit your pov. I think there's a real danger in that. You can't just ignore what you don't like. The (unfortunate) truth is that at this point it would be near impossible to convict anyone other than the person who's DNA is a match to the DNA in this case. Although I have yet to make up my own mind, I'm going to have to find an answer for the DNA, and petting a dog isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually if a match is ever found it would in all likelihood be impossible to even indict that person to begin with, let alone convict him. He could always claim his DNA got there through indirect transfer and there would be no way to prove otherwise, because there is literally no other intruder evidence that could conceivably be associated with such a person. Think about it. Even if certain "experts" might claim his handwriting was a match, his lawyer could always point to all the "experts" who absolutely positively decided the note matched Patsy's hand.

      The DNA found in her blood could not be associated with any type of cell. The theory that it came from a sneeze is just that, a theory. It could have come from anything. And it could certainly have resulted from indirect transfer that could have happened in many different ways. I urge you to read what I've written on this topic here: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-touch-dna.html

      The DNA was most likely transferred by JonBenet herself, from her hands to the longjohns after she awakened, and also to her crotch, if she scratched or wiped herself. While it's true that her attacker changed her panties, the DNA was found in her blood, not the panties, so it could have been anywhere in her crotch.

      Also you don't understand the nature of the DNA found in her blood. There was actually no foreign cell found in her blood, not even a strand of DNA, in other words not even a single foreign molecule was found in her blood, just some fragments mixed with the victim's DNA, fragments retrievable only via highly sophisticated techniques. So it doesn't really matter if she was wiped down because we are talking about submicroscopic fragments of a molecule.

      A great many people with LE experience, including chief Kolar, doubt very much that this was her killer's DNA, and for good reason. All a prosecutor need do would be call an expert witness who understood how easily such fragmentary evidence can be transferred and explained it to the jury, and this particular defense would be revealed as the red herring it is.

      Delete
  15. Some sort of corset is really a clothe worn to hold in addition to condition the particular upper body into a preferred condition regarding cosmetic or even medical functions (either through using this particular item, or even having a much more long-term effect). Both ladies and men are seen to wear corsets, however females are definitely more common wearers. Want to be the most charming female using alluring system brand? This manner corset can help you develop a wonderful bust line in addition to slender waistline.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I must admit that I had never even heard of the over-sized panties issue prior to visiting your blog. I briefly skimmed this entry previously but deemed it inconsequential. However, after reading this entry again and giving it more thought, I wanted to address a few issues.

    First, you state that for some, John is completely off limits when it comes to the so called folklore in this case. While that may be true, I would argue that for you, Patsy is completely off limits as it pertains to the folklore and you summarily dismiss the possibility. Furthermore, contrary to what you seem to be implying, it is possible for someone to conclude that Patsy had some type of knowledge or involvement without concluding that she acted alone.

    Second, I believe there are some questions surrounding this issue that you are not addressing. For instance, don't you find it odd that Patsy would purchase panties as a gift for someone else's child? Assuming that she did, and that they were wrapped as you stated, and also assuming that Patsy had no involvement whatsoever, isn't it odd that Patsy didn't question how the "gift" ended up unwrapped and put on her murdered daughter? That should have raised a huge red flag for her since an intruder wouldn't unwrap gifts in search of panties. Instead, Patsy completely downplayed the issue and provided an inconsistent explanation. This is very telling imo.

    I don't believe that the over-sized panties were a gift. The question is why would Patsy purchase panties that were that big? Well, she admitted to purchasing size 8-10 panties, which were also big. I believe that the larger panties were used to go over a diaper (something like Depends) due to JBR's bed wetting. The extra size up was likely a mistake. However, this was likely a non-issue for Patsy so she was caught off guard with the question and stumbled over it. Her inconsistent answer to this question seems to indicate that she had at least some involvement or knowledge of the events that took place that night.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, Patsy was never off limits for me or anyone else. That's because she wasn't ruled out as writer of the note, but John was. What I've been asserting is that John was off limits because of that ruling, but Patsy became fair game for the same reason. It's only after considerable digging into the evidence and testimony that it becomes clear that there is no real evidence of Patsy's involvement in the crime itself, or even that she knew anything about it. There IS evidence that she lied, but in every case where a lie can be clearly established, it's purpose is to support John's version of what happened. Which leads me to believe she was being manipulated, either by him or his legal team or both.

    Patsy's interview regarding the oversized panties is very confusing and I have a feeling she was confused and wasn't sure what her interrogators expected of her. If you can point to anything she said that strikes you as an out and out lie I'd appreciate it if you posted that here so we can discuss it -- I haven't found any such thing, just some confused testimony.

    I see no reason to assume she didn't buy those panties as a gift, as she asserts. But she insists that she did not dress JonBenet in those panties, as I recall, and we have no reason to doubt her. Why would she since they were so large?

    The bottom line on the panties is that Patsy would have had no reason to redress JonBenet if she were the one who killed her and was covering up. But John would, because his semen could have gotten on to the original pair. Also Patsy would have realized that these panties were too large and would have redressed her in the proper size panties, while John may well have assumed they were appropriate.

    But if there is anything you've found in Patsy's testimony that you feel needs to be questioned, by all means post it so we can discuss it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. On the surface, this particular issue really should be a non-issue. In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't a material piece of evidence. In my opinion, the value of this issue would be to establish whether or not Patsy had knowledge. If we can establish that she had knowledge, then that means we can establish, at a minimum, some type of role or involvement in the coverup.

    Lets assume that the panties were a gift. Lets also assume that they were wrapped as you stated in the original post. First, I doubt they would be under the Christmas tree. I don't know this for sure, but I would assume that they were a gift for someone they were visiting in Michigan. Given that, they should have been packed and ready to go. Assuming all of that, don't you think that Patsy would have been highly suspicious of how the "gift" ended up on JonBenet? I would say absolutely yes. This is, of course, assuming that she had no involvement and had no knowledge of how the panties ended up on JBR.

    As to your statement that you see no reason to assume that Patsy didn't buy the panties as a gift, I will refer you to your original post. In the question and answer quote you cited, she specifically states that they belonged to JonBenet. If they belonged to JBR, why would she state that they were a gift? If they did not belong to JBR and instead were a gift, how would Patsy know that they were only "a little big" and why would she bring up the fact that she commonly bought size 8-10?

    The bottom line is this. On one hand, Patsy is saying that the over-sized panties were a gift. On the other hand, she is saying that they did belong to JonBenet and tried rationalizing why she didn't see the extra large size as an issue. Why the inconsistent statements? This really should have been a non-issue and should have raised a red flag for Patsy if she truly wasn't involved.

    Of course you can assume that Patsy was just confused by the question. I submit, however, that her responses don't indicate that she was confused. Instead, I believe they are indicative of a conscious effort to deceive, likely because she was caught off guard by the question. This issue is open to interpretation but to me, it suggests that Patsy and some knowledge and therefore some type of involvement in either the murder or coverup.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see any sign of deception in any of Patsy's answers regarding these panties. The following statement encapsulates her recollection -- it reflects a certain amount of confusion but sounds sincere to me, and also makes sense:

      "A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game."

      This tells us that Patsy did NOT simply state that the oversized panties belonged to JonBenet in any other sense that at some point Patsy put them into her panty drawer. Patsy seems confused about how they got there, but I see no reason why her memory has to be crystal clear on a matter that would have seemed trivial prior to the murder. What Patsy recalls is that she bought the panties as a gift and then forgot to send them, so they just wound up in the panty drawer. I see no reason to doubt her, nor do I see anything suspicious in her inability to recall precisely what happened.

      If you want to argue that Patsy was consciously being deceptive, then you have to explain WHY she would have wanted to deceive anyone about those panties. What would she have had to gain by misleading the investigators? Sorry, but I can't think of any reason, but perhaps you can.

      If Patsy is the one who redressed JonBenet, then it seems unlikely she would have used such oversized panties by accident, since she knew very well what they were. So please explain why she would purposely have done that? What would she have had to gain by redressing her victim in the wrong sized panties? Or the correct size, for that matter?

      On the other hand, if John was the one who redressed her then it's not difficult to see how he could have accidentally used the wrong size, since he would have had no idea that any panties in the panty drawer were any different from any others. Except of course for the label "Wednesday," which would have been the only thing that interested him. And if his semen had gotten onto the original panties, then he would certainly have had a good reason to replace them with fresh ones.

      Delete
  19. I want to address one issue right off the bat. You, as well as many others, keep bringing up this issue of someone "redressing" JBR with the over-sized panties. I think the evidence is clear that JBR was wearing them prior to the murder. What evidence? The DNA evidence. I, like you, agree that DNA wasn't linked to the murder and was likely transferred by JBR herself. I believe the DNA was found on two separate articles of clothing, including the panties. How could JBR transfer the DNA onto her panties if the attacker redressed her after she was dead? She couldn't have. The fact that the DNA was found on a separate article of clothing suggests that both articles of clothing were being worn at the same time.

    Secondly, I believe you are misinterpreting her explanation. If I start answering some of the questions you posed, I think we will start going in circles. Instead, I am going to try to restate my interpretation of her explanation.

    The issue at hand is why JBR would be wearing over-sized panties. It is evident, at least to me, that Patsy understands the question and recognizes the issue at hand. First, Patsy provides an explanation as to why she would purchase such a large pair of panties. They were purchased as a gift for someone else. Fine. It's an odd gift, but we will ignore that for the time being. Her answer creates another issue. How did JBR end up wearing this gift? To address this issue, she states that the panties belonged to JonBenet. Well, were they a gift or weren't they? Now Patsy states, as cited by the answer you just provided, that she THINKS she bought them with the intention of sending them to Atlanta but obviously never got around to it. She doesn't KNOW if she purchased them as a gift? Also, why didn't she get around to it? It was still Christmas day. There was still time to send out the package. Ignoring that, she now has to explain why she would give such a large pair of panties to JBR instead of sending them late or returning them. She claims that she frequently bought JBR size 8-10 so it wasn't a stretch to give her the next size up. Her explanation reads like she isn't being truthful and forthcoming.

    The last issue I want to address is this. Since I believe I established that these over-sized panties weren't put on JBR after she was dead, how did she end up wearing them? Either she put them on herself or someone helped her get dressed. I have a hard time believing that JonBenet would put on a pair of panties that obviously didn't fit. It's possible, but unlikely imo. Who is more likely to help her get dressed? Patsy or John? Patsy of course. If true, her answers raise even more suspicion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's extremely doubtful that JonBenet would have been wearing the oversized panties prior to her murder because they were far too large and she wouldn't have been able to move around comfortably in them. As far as the DNA is concerned, you are wrong. It was not found in her panties per se, but mixed with blood from her vagina, which could easily have gotten onto the panties after she'd been redressed, since this was a fresh wound and she would have been bleeding. I can think of only one reason anyone would want to redress her in fresh panties, and that is because the original panties contained semen. I can think of NO reason why Patsy would have wanted her dressed in those panties at any time, can you?

      After several years, very advanced "touch DNA" methods were used to identify a very few skin cells from her long johns that apparently matched the traces of DNA mixed with her blood. Those cells could have gotten onto her clothing and in her blood in any number of ways, most likely from something she herself had touched. Once the cells were on her fingers they could have been transferred to the long johns and also onto her vagina when she wiped herself.

      As I said, I see no reason to suspect Patsy of lying about those panties since she had no reason to lie about them. It's clear she was confused and had some problems remembering all the details of how they were purchased and why.

      Delete
    2. Doc, I honestly feel bad that you have to constantly answer the "PR did it" theories. The 911 call and Larry King interview she could not have been more believable to me.

      Delete
  20. Jonbenet was wearing those over sized panties when she was killed. they were not added later during the time the police had left Arendt alone and in charge and JR went missing.
    they were urine stained and matched up to the urine stains on the white thermal long johns as per the autopsy.
    i too believe when PR pulled off the black velvet pants and put on the long johns she would have noticed if those underwear were too big.
    whoever put them on her did so after PR had changed her but before she was killed. the urine stains tell the tale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, Tina. You're right. I'd forgotten about the urine stains. That complicates things a bit, because I can't easily explain why John would have wanted to redress her if the plan was to dump the body before calling in the police. If the original panties were stained with semen he could easily have gotten rid of them the following day, assuming all had gone according to plan.

      All I can think of is that he might have been playing it safe, just in case something went wrong with his plan and the police found her in the basement. (Which of course is what happened.)

      Delete
    2. "they were urine stained and matched up to the urine stains on the white thermal long johns as per the autopsy."

      Is it possible the urine stains on the oversize panties got there via transfer from the already stained, and possibly still wet, long johns? I must admit the urine stains bother me, because if the stains on those panties got there when she was clubbed, it means she must have been changed before then. And even if there was semen on the original panties before the murder, it's hard to see her attacker wanting to suddenly drop everything and change her at that particular point. There would have been plenty of time to change her after clubbing her. I must admit, I'm puzzled.

      Can't see any reason for Patsy or John or an intruder to want to change her panties prior to the attack.

      Delete
  21. While I think the urine stains might have transferred by "osmosis" if they were placed on her after death (and the ljs replaced over them) I tend to think Tina has it right - she probably had them on prior to the murder. Just a guess, as it really could go either way. But if the 12s were put on after the murder it couldn't have been too long after, otherwise the urine on the ljs would dry and not transfer to the panties.

    The reason to redress her would be the same whether or not the murder were premeditated; she needed to be dressed as per bed time.

    If the decision had not yet been reached to kill her, she'd need to be redressed so that PR wouldn't notice anything wrong in the morning. If the decision had already been made to kill her, she needed to be redressed as she was at bedtime because that's how the "kidnappers" would have found her - in panties and ljs.

    I think Doc's inference that the original panties had become semen stained is probably right, otherwise the originals would have been used for redressing. I disagree with Doc on the point of leaving the semen stained panties on and getting rid of them the next day when the body was dumped. At any time there would have been the danger of discovery of the body and if discovered with JR's semen on the panties, it's all over for JR.

    It's hard to believe JR would not have noticed that the panties were too big - if he'd been the long term abuser he certainly would have had some experience viewing JB's normal size panties. But it's even harder to believe PR would put these on JB. JR may have chosen the 12s because that's all that was available, in the basement, and it would be risky going back up to her room to get the proper size.

    OTOH, the SA might have happened in her room - blood on the pillow and rope fibers on the bed suggest this possibility- so the panties really might have been in the drawer as Patsy told the police. I've never been able to see why PR would lie about them being in the drawer if she knew they weren't, and knew that the police knew, hence I infer she's telling the truth. If JR found them in the panty drawer he'd have assumed they were appropriate even if he thought them rather large.

    But where are the other size 12s?

    If the originals were "Wed." panties the size 12 Wed. panties may have been selected for consistency of the Wed. feature.

    A short digression - it's been mentioned, but is worth repeating that if JR and PR were in on the staging together any panties could have been used. Only a killer working alone would need to make sure that the clothing would be the same as at bedtime so as not to tip off the innocent parent.

    All just musings. We can go back and forth endlessly and the bottom line is the panties don't help us solve the crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, first of all we don't need to assume John was a long time abuser. He could have started at any time, even the previous day. And imo the panties do help us solve the crime. Because regardless of when or why she was redressed, there would have been no good reason for an intruder to do that, and if Patsy had done it she would certainly not have chosen that oversize pair.

      Delete
  22. That's true, we don't have to consider JR the long term abuser. But if there was long term abuse, and it wasn't JR, that makes the whole thing more complex and hard to believe. JR just happened to start abusing her that night, after someone else had been abusing her for some time? Of course we don't really have to consider that there was any long term abuse at all. But if there is no long term abuse, or if JR isn't the long term abuser, is it very likely JB was threatening to tell on him?

    It's also true that the panties do help solve the crime in the sense they help us eliminate scenarios. An intruder probably wouldn't redress, PR wouldn't have used size 12s, and if the "the Ramseys" were working together, there would be no need for size 12s, or for any confusion on PR's part as to what JB was wearing and what was in the underwear drawer.

    The reason for redressing seems pretty straightforward to me.

    In the end we don't really know why panties that were too large were chosen. All we can do is speculate.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "But if there was long term abuse, and it wasn't JR, that makes the whole thing more complex and hard to believe."

    There was never any evidence of "long term" abuse, just evidence of "chronic" abuse, which only means that she could have been abused prior to the attack that killed her. I seriously doubt she was ever abused by anyone other than John, long or short term.

    As far as the panties are concerned, I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You're the one who first used the term "long time abuser". I thought you were using it as a synonym for chronic abuser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did I say "long time abuser"? Don't recall. But if I did it was a mistake, since we have no way of knowing how long the abuse was going on. Sorry.

      Delete
  25. I hate to add more to this endless debate, but I suppose there is no way of knowing if the urine stains found on her ljs and underwear were the result of her actively peeing her pants or of her bladder releasing at the moment of death, correct?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the general assumption has been that this was a moment of death urine release. But it might not be possible to tell for sure.

      Delete
  26. this might be rather simple explanation for why the oversized panties are on the body but here goes.PR gets JBR ready for bed and goes to bed herself. JR and Burke are finishing the toy and getting BR to bed when JBR appears and is given pineapple. JR returns to JBR after BR goes to bed. the molestation/assault takes place, JBR is cleaned up and redressed back ready for bed and JR is heading to bed. This is when the head blow occurs as JBR is making signs of telling, or running to her mother and exposing the assault. She is grabbed by the shirt and twisted at the collar leaving the red bruise at the throat to prevent her from squirming away. the flashlight head blow follows to inflict the head wound and to stop her in her tracks. then the rest of the crime is enacted--strangle, add garrotte, remolest so that the paint brush splinter ends up inside her to cover up the previous injury days/hours before. note is written. body is hidden. the tape and hand cords could be added at anytime during all of that. I submit that the hand cords were added after rigor had set in and that is why they were loose and her hands were not bound together but over her head with the 17 inch distance between hands. the rigor mortis dictated the distanced the arms could be moved.
    Tina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to have forgotten about the oversized panties, so I'm curious about your theory on that. As for the rest, I feel sure Burke knew nothing about the pineapple, otherwise he would have reported that incident when interviewed by the police or at the GJ hearings. Also there was no paint brush splinter found in her vagina and also no reason to assume that anything like that was inserted there. The coroner saw evidence of "digital penetration," not penetration with a sharp object, which would have produced much more blood. Otherwise, what you've written seems plausible.

      Delete