tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post8865345481051453536..comments2024-02-23T18:09:21.379-05:00Comments on Solving the JonBenet Ramsey Case: Folkore 2 -- The Oversized Panties SagaDocGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-55018084498893793992018-09-28T07:15:38.941-04:002018-09-28T07:15:38.941-04:00Very touching and not unbelievable.Very touching and not unbelievable.Beautiful old baghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06484265032498358667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-47794590996951928782016-01-06T12:22:33.323-05:002016-01-06T12:22:33.323-05:00Hi, DocG. Thank you for responding so quickly. I...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.<br /><br />“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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />otghttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?23-JonBenet-Ramseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-47827199783188227412016-01-05T09:18:16.423-05:002016-01-05T09:18:16.423-05:00Sorry, but "guilty knowledge" doesn'...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.<br /><br />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.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-3457054577484370152016-01-04T15:27:19.588-05:002016-01-04T15:27:19.588-05:00(cont.)
“I can think of only one reason anyone wo...(cont.)<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />• Why was JonBenet redressed in oversized panties?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />"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."<br /><br />• Why would Patsy be deceptive about the whole subject?<br /><br />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).<br />otghttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?23-JonBenet-Ramseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-71274490962655107792016-01-04T15:21:40.778-05:002016-01-04T15:21:40.778-05:00DocG November 4, 2012 at 4:12 AM
“I must admit I&...DocG November 4, 2012 at 4:12 AM<br /><br />“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? <br /><br />“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.<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />• Why were the Ramseys asked about the oversized panties in the August, 2000, interview?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />(I’ll finish in a second post because of character limitation.)<br />otghttp://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?23-JonBenet-Ramseynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-74136846557315076542014-02-21T10:49:51.865-05:002014-02-21T10:49:51.865-05:00You seem to have forgotten about the oversized pa...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.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-19366534119504799962014-02-18T11:37:59.992-05:002014-02-18T11:37:59.992-05:00this might be rather simple explanation for why th...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.<br />TinaTinanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-16097501800693718452013-12-05T09:16:19.253-05:002013-12-05T09:16:19.253-05:00I think the general assumption has been that this ...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.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-75019579386589746742013-12-05T06:36:05.799-05:002013-12-05T06:36:05.799-05:00I hate to add more to this endless debate, but I s...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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-25243138448839080682013-11-25T09:08:01.558-05:002013-11-25T09:08:01.558-05:00Did I say "long time abuser"? Don't ...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.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-25330236502787784012013-11-25T05:58:11.637-05:002013-11-25T05:58:11.637-05:00You're the one who first used the term "l...You're the one who first used the term "long time abuser". I thought you were using it as a synonym for chronic abuser. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-25608935479494235652013-11-24T17:59:36.268-05:002013-11-24T17:59:36.268-05:00Good point.Good point.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-15280271388784472332013-11-24T17:57:45.893-05:002013-11-24T17:57:45.893-05:00"But if there was long term abuse, and it was..."But if there was long term abuse, and it wasn't JR, that makes the whole thing more complex and hard to believe."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />As far as the panties are concerned, I agree.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-59693323345877753232013-11-24T14:55:44.989-05:002013-11-24T14:55:44.989-05:00I wonder if the police were not asking about the s...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-2823578178959725672013-11-24T12:09:43.920-05:002013-11-24T12:09:43.920-05:00That's true, we don't have to consider JR ...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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />The reason for redressing seems pretty straightforward to me. <br /><br />In the end we don't really know why panties that were too large were chosen. All we can do is speculate. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-17273416104263766502013-11-24T11:19:33.804-05:002013-11-24T11:19:33.804-05:00Well, first of all we don't need to assume Joh...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. DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-16494351811071643942013-11-23T22:47:41.599-05:002013-11-23T22:47:41.599-05:00While I think the urine stains might have transfer...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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />But where are the other size 12s? <br /><br />If the originals were "Wed." panties the size 12 Wed. panties may have been selected for consistency of the Wed. feature. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />All just musings. We can go back and forth endlessly and the bottom line is the panties don't help us solve the crime. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-4752063451156229062013-11-19T23:16:20.910-05:002013-11-19T23:16:20.910-05:00"they were urine stained and matched up to th..."they were urine stained and matched up to the urine stains on the white thermal long johns as per the autopsy."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Can't see any reason for Patsy or John or an intruder to want to change her panties prior to the attack.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-47668128352669817192013-11-19T23:03:51.733-05:002013-11-19T23:03:51.733-05:00Thanks so much, Tina. You're right. I'd fo...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.<br /><br />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.)<br />DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-73497949777181869122013-11-19T22:35:42.834-05:002013-11-19T22:35:42.834-05:00Jonbenet was wearing those over sized panties when...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.<br />they were urine stained and matched up to the urine stains on the white thermal long johns as per the autopsy.<br />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. <br />whoever put them on her did so after PR had changed her but before she was killed. the urine stains tell the tale. tinanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-54401229611346200352013-11-19T16:20:14.579-05:002013-11-19T16:20:14.579-05:00Doc, I honestly feel bad that you have to constant...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. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-23099800508476266242013-11-01T23:02:30.180-04:002013-11-01T23:02:30.180-04:00It's extremely doubtful that JonBenet would ha...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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-76404559142726452362013-11-01T16:44:37.449-04:002013-11-01T16:44:37.449-04:00I want to address one issue right off the bat. Yo...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /> misterGwriternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-22526434901260919242013-11-01T10:17:51.222-04:002013-11-01T10:17:51.222-04:00I don't see any sign of deception in any of Pa...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:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.DocGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359004200002936544noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6494242281396312957.post-21618158361522134802013-10-31T23:43:27.335-04:002013-10-31T23:43:27.335-04:00On the surface, this particular issue really shoul...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. misterGwriternoreply@blogger.com