The Significance Of The Big Bloomies...

I wonder if the Big Bloomies played a different role altogether. It was stated in one interview that, even though they were intended as a gift, JonBenet made it known that she wanted them. Anyone with kids knows how persistant they can be when they want something (even something the parent knows the child won't like once they get it). They'll ask over and over, hoping the parent will get tired of saying "no", and the child will get what they want.

So...what if JB had been so persistent in her asking to have the Big Bloomies that it became an "issue" with her and Patsy. Maybe JB had wanted to wear the Wednesdays for Christmas Day, and Patsy wouldn't let her. Or maybe after coming home, and seeing the new Bloomies still in their package, JB really, really, really wanted them for her own. (And in a case like this, saying "they aren't your size" isn't going to be a persuasive argument to a child.) So, the altercation happens. Maybe it was over bedwetting or soiling, or maybe it was something else altogether, but for whatever reason, it's time to re-dress JBR so Patsy goes to the underwear drawer. There is the package of Bloomies that JBR had wanted so badly for her own but had been denied her. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that, out of guilt and regret, Patsy make a final attempt to give JB what she wanted.

Then again...sometimes I wonder what role the "washing" had to do with the death, too. Much has been made about bedwetting, but what jumped out at me were the references to "soiling". I have 4 kids (now ages 11 to 23) and had 1 bedwetter - my oldest - who wet the bed until he was 8. It was inconvenient, and not something I broadcasted to friends and neighbors, but we coped with it well enough. My 3rd child, though, began having trouble with fecal soiling (encopresis) when she was 4 and about to start pre-school. It continued for about 3 months, and I can't describe how traumatic it was for me as a parent. While bedwetting is no picnic, all of a parent's embarrassment, feelings of failure, humiliation, etc. are amplified beyond measure in fecal soiling because it's not something you can keep private. It happens in public and anyone within smelling distance of your child knows they're dirty. I can't tell you how many times I picked my daughter up from her 1/2 day pre-school, and could immediately smell the mess in her pants. I would cry all the way home out of frustration, worry and self-loathing for not being able to "fix" my daughter. The soiling happened daily, sometimes more than once, and didn't require just wiping; it's a major cleaning job - just like changing a baby in cloth diapers that have to be rinsed out rather than thrown away.

What if JB had encopresis, and not just "didn't wipe herself"? It was said she'd have "accidents" at neighbor's houses and have to borrow underwear. And didn't Patsy tell her soiling/wetting wasn't "pretty"? Was it at the Christmas party JB said "I don't feel pretty"? Maybe over time, the "cleansing" - and even possible douching, as someone suggested in another thread - had escalated into a punishment of sorts by a frustrated Patsy, hoping it would make JB stop soiling herself. (Constant soiling and douching both could explain JB's constant yeast or bacterial infections. And Patsy may not have mentioned the soiling to the pediatrician out of fear of embarrassment or looking bad.)

So the possible scenerio: The family leaves the Whites, and maybe Patsy notices that JB has soiled herself again. An argument ensues in the car, which is why JB is not allowed to help deliver the Christmas baskets. They arrive home and JB is sent to her room until Patsy can deal with her and the mess. Patsy cleans her up, while JR and BR put together the model. Feeling sorry for her, JB then reads her the story he mentioned in his first account of the events. He and Burke go to bed, and -- then what? JB has another "accident" sending Patsy over the edge, leading to a fall in the bathroom? Or JB sneaks downstairs for some of Burke's leftover pineapple (after being sent to bed with no snack as punishment) and Patsy loses her temper, leading to a push off the stool?

Something along these lines would explain the need to say JB was asleep the whole time. It would've been too hard for them (especially young Burke) to tell part of the story without arousing suspicions as to where the argument led. And it could lead Burke and JR to willingly change their testimoney while truly not knowing that Patsy was the killer. I can see her saying "We can't tell the police about the argument in the car; we don't want them telling the world that JB pooped in her pants! That argument had nothing to do with the intruder that killed her, so why tell them something that would embarrass JB?" So they remove any possibility that JB had an argument, was being punished, etc. by saying she was asleep the entire time.

Maybe it all sounds too far fetched and whacky, but knowing the strain of dealing with a child with encopresis, it would have added a whole new level of stress to Patsy's life. I think PR unintentionally caused JB's death, and staged the cover up alone. I see it as entirely possible that her son and husband believed the intruder story (even though they must have had doubts and questions) because they needed to believe it. And having the DA support that theory helped/helps them immensely in their denial.

Whew - guess that's enough for one post, especially for a newbie! Writing it down helps all the thoughts to stop bouncing around in my head, so thanks for letting me get it off my chest.

Rai

 

I think you've got something there.
I have one child who is disabled and is not continent of urine (in 'normal, everyday' English, she wets her pants). Generally, people can't tell that she is wet. She IS continent of stool, so she doesn't soil her pants.
I had forgotten this, but your post made me remember.
One of my sisters had a daughter with encopresis; pretty much anyone in the general vicinity could tell when she had done it. My sister always denied - it was always "she just doesn't wipe herself well (when sometimes you could even see the poor girl was stooling in her pants in front of you. And, if you didn't see her, you certainly smelled her.
Someone I babysat when I was a teenager had a daughter with the same problem. I know that she took a stool softener each night before bedtime with the idea that it would work overnight and she would have a stool in the morning before she went anywhere for the day. The mom never said anything about it to me, but I figured it out from what medication she was taking when I had to put her to bed and things I saw.

Having a child with encopresis would also make the upcoming Disney cruise a much more stressful situation too. I don't have time to look, but I know I have read in the past the toileting issues with children lead to more child abuse than any other situation.

 

the clouds dissipate...

this has beena very interesting discussion peoples..all of you..with different aspects and ideas.

I also know of the frustration caused by soiling..but not about to embarass anyone. enough said.

For mine the biggest hole in the whole debate was MOTIVE !! ..why..everything follows from this.. both consequence ...and actions!!..

I think ( for me ) its important to remember...we arent dealing with middle Amercia here..this is no NORMAL family we are dealing with..
We have John.. successful, a relative womaniser, fairly indifferent to his family..a trophy hunter.. etc etc.. not someone I'd pick for a mate !! lol

then there's Patsy.. el -tropo-femina !!.. this gurlie doesnt live in the same world as you or I folks!! She has decided mental problems. she is re living her life vicariously through her daughter...it deja vu Patsy etc.... to me...anything that JB would have done 'wrong" ( I .e..anything a normal lil girl might do or suffer from ) is to Patsy a refelction of her own imperfection..and egads...she was turning 40...life is over huh!! she obviously didnt get the attention she needed from her hubby.. and Burke was a boy..so what did he matter etc..

Yes..i could come at the idea that "IT" all came to a head ( no pun intended) that night..

and so we come to the Bloomies ( these and the note are the pivotal clues arent they )..

Everyone seems to want to fit a rational explanantion to all these events.. and i just dont think Rationality is high on the list here.. its a sad accidental death/turned murder cover up.. there was not premeditation to this.. no script..no chance to get everything neat and squared away...it was all think ( as best they could) on the fly.. act/react.. over act etc..all in real time..no rehearsals ( save the false start on the note !! ).

What were tehy trying to accomplish??and what did they have at hand to do this.. They were trying to make it look like someone else had done this...nothing more..nothing less.. the Bloomies to me are just such a misdirection.. hey...look some "creepy" perv come 'factional" despot has such a knowledge of her daily doings..that they sort of came prepared.. ( but alas they are sick pycho imbeciles...they got the wrong size..silly them!! )..

Everything the Ramseys do from the time of JonBents demise ...must be to point elsewhere...anywhere.. and so the ruse in concocted.. they are scrambling to get this to work.. what do they have handy.... not a lot...they'v e resorted to using own pad and pen to make note ( like a serious kidnapper is ever going to work that way)..there's a trend 'pattern' of implimentation happening here.. they used some over sized bloomies ..that Patsy rememebered..ooh that will throw them!! .. used soem cord and duct tape handy...( but then must make sure to get rid of the rest...and successfully done too)..
its important that the Bloomies appear to cocme from outside..why...only an 'Intruder" would bring them surely!!...now this doesnt need to make absolute sense to us here...its what they were trying to fabricate at the time..and since Im assuming they hadnt prior murders under their belts..its all new....

Patsy remember is very use to "Staging" its what pageants are all about...the look ...the impression.. not the substance...this has her signature all over it !!

The note reinforces to me who the 'general' is here..and John better bloody well remember it....it screams..you owe me John !!
but to show the bloomies came from outside..they must keep the others....
thsi is where She ( Patsy ) screws it up...she stuffs up her own concoction.. ..in the heat of the moent etc.. she gets it wrong.. she has forgotten that the bloomies can be traced back to the ..'present for her niece " etc.. either that or she remebers later...hence making sure the rest of packet disappears..and hopes its lineage isnt discovered...

The title perfect Murder is a misnomer.. it was totally botched in a fashion..its just that its all ben helped no end aftewards... by some very sloppy police work, incredible complicity by the DA, a bevvy of opportunistic outsiders all going along for the ride.., and a Jackal of a legal team.....its all just fallen into place for them !!

I too was wondering about the bloomies..

I dont anymore

 

Well, here's my take on the big bloomies... shred at will.

Because of Jayelles excellent experiment and demonstration we can conclude that there is no way that JBR chose to wear such monster sized panties herself or that Patsy would have let her wear them or that if they were worn at the White's they wouldn't have been noticed... underpants that large would have bunched up in her pants creating unsightly bulges and bumps that would have been noticable, and would have to have been so uncomfortable that JBR would have been picking at her bum to try and unbunch them which also would have been noticed. There's no way that PR would not have noticed how huge they were when taking her pants off for bed, and no way they wouldn't have come down with the pants. So... we know that these were not the panties JBR wore to the White's or wore to bed. They were put on her as part of the redressing after she was killed, thus, part of the staging.

The question is then, why would such large panties have been used as part of the staging, and why were such large panties chosen for the staging. It seems obvious to me that her underwear was changed to hide something about the underwear she had on... semen or DNA or any other indicators that may be found on the panties that would point to the Ramseys. We know that the Ramseys were trying to make it look like this was the work of an intruder, and there was something about the panties she was REALLY wearing that had to be hidden in order to find that it WAS an intruder.

My guess is that the reason the large sized panties were chosen is because they were one of the only available panties that were in the house that would have been pristine... they were sealed in plastic untouched by Ramsey hands, thus, would have no Ramsey physical evidence on them. Once a pair of pristine panties were chosen to use to disguise any evidence of one of the Ramsey's having been in contact with them (excluding JBR, of course) the logical choice of WHICH pair in the package would have been the pair that said Wednesday. This way they could point to an intruder bringing the panties with them to put on JBR because no reasonable mother would have allowed their daughter to wear them and no reasonable child would have chosen to. They could point to those panties and say "See? They had to have been brought by an intruder because they have no physical evidence of any Ramsey on them other than the Ramsey wearing them (JBR), so they HAVE to be a pair of panties brought with an intruder!"

That's why the package of panties was removed from the drawer and hidden or destroyed... they wanted to be able to establish them as evidence of an intruder who brought the panties with him.

Except they had a problem with that story once they found out that the housekeeper said those panties had been purchased by PR and put into the panty drawer by PR... so, now they couldn't say that an intruder brought them in with them, but because they were pristine could still say that an intruder took them from the panty drawer because they still don't have any Ramsey physical evidence on them (or so they thought... they weren't considering that there may have been fiber evidence from the cleaning of JBR's genitals that transferred to the panties).

So now, PR's only choice is to admit that the panties were an item she bought herself and put into the panty drawer herself. But, she can't explain the fact that the REST of them weren't left in the drawer, and that fact makes them look guilty. So, in order to try to point the panty evidence BACK onto an intruder, they had to turn in the REST of the package of panties.

Did they keep the original package? Maybe, but at that stage of the game I doubt it because by that time they would have learned that they would be checked for PR or JR physical evidence on the INSIDE of the package. Did they take out the panties from the package without wearing gloves when they were staging this scene? If not (and I doubt they would have thought of it at the time they were staging the scene since they either hid or destroyed the rest), there might be Ramsey physical evidence on the INSIDE of the package which points right back to the Ramseys.

I think the package turned over years later was a NEW package of panties that this time the Ramseys would have been careful to put their hand in and remove the Wednesday pair while wearing gloves so there would be no Ramsey physical evidence left in the inside of the package... thereby pointing AGAIN to an intruder having opened the package and removed the Wednesday pair himself. Now they can point back to an intruder and say "See? There's no Ramsey physical evidence on the INSIDE of the package, do an intruder must have taken the Wednesday pair out of the package himself!"

The Ramseys think this is clever and either plant the NEW package of panties for their own investigators to find or just hand them to their own investigators themselves to turn in. BUT, what they didn't think of was that there is STILL no explanation for that package of panties to have been missing from the panty drawer to begin with. The fact the rest of the panties was turned in just points to them STILL trying to cover-up their own involvement and point back to an intruder. The very fact that they eventually turned them in years later shows that they are desperate to point back to an intruder because if it really was an intruder the panties being missing from the drawer to begin with could have been brushed off as the intruder taking the package with him because he wanted to do perverted things with them or because he wanted to take away what he thought might have his physical evidence on. Therefore, I find that their turning the rest of the package of panties in so many years later just ends up pointing right back to them.

Thank you and good night.
:curtsey: :takeabow:

:rs: <---- I'm only putting this here because it cracks me up.

 

I don't think JonBenet had any medical problems relating to her bowels. Her doctor was been on tv and he listed the reasons for her visits over the past year. She'd made an exceptional number of visits for coughs and colds. It seems like an exceptional number to me anyway. I seriously think that the combined number of visits of my three children in their lifetime would be less than the number of visits Jonbenet had in the last year of her life! Our doctors would chase you out the door if you wasted an appointment for a cough or cold! They'd tell you to go home and take a couple of paracetemol!

Regarding JonBenet demanding to wear the Bloomies, it's always possible but I think it would be highly unlikely. I can vouch for the fact that they would be very uncomfortable - always slipping down, crotch dangling between the legs and they would be draughty too. Even wearing trousers on top, they wodn't sit snugly and going to the loo would be a fiddle.

Of course, few of us here actually KNEW JonBenet so I suppose it's possible that she was a strong-willed child who was determined to wear those outsized knickers rather than her own proper-fitting Bloomies and that her mother let her win the battle thinking that she'd learn from experience and change them pretty quickly only to have the stubborn little girl wear them out of sheer determination not to give in! However, it doesn't sound as if that was the case. I'd have expected Patsy to express embarassment and to explain that she knew the knickers were too big and that she hadn't wanted JonBenet to wear them. She didn't - she said that jonbenet had opened the packet and that they'd taken the decision to use them.....

THAT is what doesn't make sense. As a mother of three, there is no way I would have let any of my children just "use" a packet of knickers that were SO outsized. Maybe in an emergency - yes, needs must, but this wasn't an emergency.

A witness reported Jonbenet saying to her at the party on 23rd "I don't feel pretty". If this is true, it suggests that jonBenet was a child who cared about her appearance. It doesn't sound like a child who didn't know better than to wear a pair of ridiculously out-sized knickers that could have fit her mother! And there is the fact that Patsy spend hundreds of dollars have clothes custom made to fit her child. Every costume had little matching details - right down to the shoes. I simply cannot see Patsy "taking the decision to use" those knickers.

 

Wow! These are some TRULY excellent posts from relative newcomers Rai, DrDetect, and Kanga! WELCOME!!!


...YumYum

 

Thank you very much, but most of the credit (in my case anyway) I have to give to Jayelles for the experiment with the panties. I don't have kids, so would have had no idea just how large and ridiculous these panties would have been for JBR to wear... and would never have been able to construct any kind of a reasonable theory about them had it not been for that well documented experiment. My hat is off to Jayelles for the bloomies experiment... it really is marvelous. I'm truly impressed with the time and attention it took to do it and documenting so well the results.

And thanks for the welcome! I can't seem to peel my eyes off this forum lately... so much well thought out interesting info and theories that stick to the actual facts. It's riveting, and I'm one of those people that's normally easily bored.

:rs: <----- It still cracks me up.

 

Your post stopped me cold Rai. We have heard that JonBenét did soil her bed on occasion (I believe this statement came from the housekeeper but don't have my books available to provide the reference.) I don't recall anyone mentioning the possibility of douching previously but it does make sense if the mess were bad enough and the parent had been brought up thinking this was a proper cleansing tool. Douching (especially in a young child) could explain the yeast infections, vaginal irritation and scarring, and could possibly be mistaken for sexual abuse. It has been used as a form of sexual abuse all too often as has the use of enemas.

While douching was very popular when I was growing up, studies proved it was not only unnecessary but can actually be unhealthy. If Patsy was brought up to cleanse herself, she may not have realized that the thought process on douching had changed or may not have opted to change that habit. Makes one stop and think about the medical problems JonBenét had and if they really were coming from bubble baths.

Reference:
The vagina is a self-cleaning organ, and as such, does not need "washing." In fact, regular douching can be harmful because it creates an upset in the normal vaginal Ph. In a healthy vagina, douching can actually cause a yeast infection!

http://www.fwhc.org/health/yeast.htm

Oh yes - Welcome to the forum. :wave:

 

Welcome to FFJ, Rai! We're glad you posted the thoughts bouncing around in your head. As Sue said, it's good to hear another's ideas about the case.

 

What JonBenet's doctor said (on TV or otherwise) cannot be trusted. Dr. Beuf was a friend of the Ramseys, and he tried to protect himself by saying JonBenet's medical records had been "lost." How convenient is THAT?

 

I brought it up around a year ago and also recently.
I suggested it because it does explain the autopsy findings and the things found in the doctor visits before her death.
I don't know if I can explain this properly, but there is also a 'fit' with Patsy having been diagnosed with cancer of the female genital organs. Douching her daughter could be a misplaced way to fight her own cancer or to deal with her own feelings about having cancer in an area directly connected with her own femininity. Or, it could be a misguided attempt to prevent JB from ever getting cancer. The mom would not think of douching as abuse - it would be 'care' of her daughter.
I have also heard of people using douches and enemas as abuse - not sexual abuse per se, more 'control' abuse (which sexual abuse is usaully actually more about than sex anyway).

Bedwetting and encopresis often are a reult of stress. People don't think of little children as having stress, but JB had a mother who had just come thru a major illness - she watched her mom lose her hair and being sick, JB was being groomed for pageants (sounds stressful to me) and, not only was she expected to compete, she was expected to win (after all her mom and aunt were each still promoting herself as a former state beauty queen years later. Stress, stress, stress. And, it's real hard to feel pretty when there is poop in your pants.

I don't think that JB took the big bloomies out herself. If she was with when her mom bought them for the cousin and she got a package herself at the same time, she would have had no 'reason' for wanting those big Bloomies.
I think that her wanting them was part of the explanation that had to be made to explain the underwear after Patsy was 'caught' by the Housekeeper. The way that PagingDrDetect stated it sounds like a good explanation for what could have happened.

As for what happened to the other underwear and why; stool in them is a very good reason to get rid of them. It's hard to rinse out, it often leaves stains and even small amounts leaves a smell. The best way to remove the evidence of the soiled underwear would be to seal them in a ziplock bag (which would hide the smell) and put them into something the Ramseys would be taking out.
One of the mysteries in the case has always been 'why would the family be so intent on leaving town once her body was found?' The family's explanantion was that they didn't feel 'safe' in Boulder, but a more pressing reason might have been to get the evidence that was hidden in their travel gear out of the house ASAP.

Soiling with stool might also be an explanation for some of the other evidence in the case - JB's strange hairdo. It may have been partially in the hairstyle she had worn that evening (not all people do take soft hair elastics out at night) and some extra hair clips, etc to put it out of the way for a bath.
If she had soiled herself, the plan that night may have been for her to be bathed, maybe in addition to an enema (get rid of the rest of the stool) and a douch (clean the 'contamination' from that area). If JB didn't want to cooperate with a bath, that would put an uncooperative child in the bathroom where she could accidentally be injured in an attempt to avoid a bath.

Encopresis also would explain the need to wash down her body after death. If a bath didn't get done, the soiling would still need to be removed. And the washcloth might have gone the same place as the soiled underwear. It also could explain the smell that was noted in the bathroom. Maybe after cleaning up, there was some rinsing of underwear/ washcloth before they were put in a bag and some bathroom cleaning done.

I think encopresis is something that explains a lot of the things we know are facts without stretching.

 

As YumYum said ... EXCELLENT posts, Kanga and DrDetect!!!

We're really glad you joined FFJ. I think I've welcomed you before, but if I haven't - WELCOME! After the past two weeks, I can hardly remember what I did five minutes ago, much less five days ago, so please excuse my short term memory loss. Lately, I've begun to feel like Dorrie from "Finding Nemo"!

 

Wow! Another excellent post, Sue! You guys are really rocking it this morning!

Add to everything mentioned above is Patsy's contention that she didn't know WHEN JonBenet had last bathed! That is especially suspect considering Patsy was so involved with what JBR was going to wear to the White's party ... would she also have not made sure JBR was clean, had a bath, etc.?!!

If struggling with JonBenet in the bathroom during a clean-up of an stool accident led to JonBenet cracking her skull ... then Patsy would have wanted to deny any knowledge of a bath or proximation to JonBenet's bathroom, INCLUDING when JonBenet was last bathed.

If JonBenet sneaked a few pieces of pineapple from the bowl on her way up the stairs before bed, pineapple is a known diuretic and fruit can be a stool softener. With JonBenet's bed-wetting/stool problems, the pineapple may have made it worse that night.

 

I found also a good article about some of the issues with parents who have cancer and talking to their kids about cancer. It's about breast cancer, but any 'female' cancer would have some of the same issues. I was trying to find some articles about children regressing in behavior when a parent (especially a mom) is very ill, but I don't have time to look any more right now.

Trying to take focus off of the bathroom also gives a possible explantation for the well cleaned maglight flashlight. Even though some have promoted it as the 'murder weapon', it never seemed to fit to me. It raises too many questions - if Patsy caught John abusing JB and used it to 'bop' her husband and hit JB instead, why is the maglight in the bedroom room? How did it get there and who brought it? It's an awfully large and heavy flashlight for Patsy to be carrying around the house to check out noises.
If Burke hit JB with it, why was it out and why would he be mad enough at her to hit her?
And, if it was the 'murder weapon', why would it be left right out there almost asking to be discovered? It fits an intruder much more than anything happening in the house.

I think (IMHO) that the best explanation is that it was part of the staging. A head injury from hitting the head on a bathtub, toilet or bedpost could not be explained by claiming an intruder (Can you imagine - "The intruder stun gunned her (after feeding her pineapple) and then took her into the bathroom to bathe her. He dropped her and she hit her head on the bathtub").
If Patsy needed to bring attention away from the place that the head injury actually occurred, the maglight does it. It is large enough and heavy enough to reasonably account for the injury and, maybe most important, it shifts the location of the injury to anywhere in the house (and away from the bathroom or bedroom).
By putting it where it will be seen and then wiping it totally of any prints (inside and out), it 'becomes' a logical 'murder weapon' (i. e. why would anyone take such great pains to remove all evidence from it if it wasn't the murder weapon).
IMHO, it's a red herring shouting out "Look at me".

 

Sorry Sue. I wasn't able to spend much time on the forum last year and am just recently able to get back to staying quasi caught up and trying to post. Excellent post! It's good to see alternative theories being explored regarding the physical evidence and all those doctor appointments.

 

Rai's comments were what first got me thinking. They go together really well with what I thought and explain some of the things that I didn't have an explanation for.

Patsy coming into JB's room and finding out she had stooled in her underwear could also explain some of the things about how her room appeared.
I have read that the bed drapes on the side near the bedtable were disarranged and there were some cloth loops on the floor; at first thought to be hairloops, but then apparently identified as weaving loops from the loom that was found on the bedside table. I don't know if the pillow and sheets are in the picture exactly the way they were when found, but I do remember reading about the bed drapes.

Now, with the pictures in mind, imagine this scenario.
Patsy is tired and ready to go to bed herslf, but she looks in at JB one more time. She can smell the odor of stool and knows that JB has soiled herself in bed (trust me, working in a hospital, you can smell even a small amount very well). Patsy knows she will have to clean JB up before morning, so she tries to get her out of bed. She would get her out from the side the bedside table is on because there is more room on that side.
JB wants to stay in bed and puts the pillow over her head. Mom takes the pillow and puts it further down on the bed.
John and Burke may hear this, but pay no attention; the same thing has happened before, so it's not anything out of the ordinary from their point of view. (And, it actually fits with Nedra's comments that JB would have "screamed bloody murder" if someone tried to take her out of her bed. Maybe the family knew from experience that would be what would happen because JB was removed from her bed fairly often to be cleaned up).

In the course of getting JB out of bed, the bed drapes are disturbed and the cloth loops end up thrown all over the floor.
Patsy finally does get her out of the bed. One scenario might be for JB to be pulling away from Patsy in the bedroom. As Patsy suddenly looses hold, JB is still pulling away and the end result is that JB slams against the bedpost at the foot of the bed with great force.
Another scenario might be Patsy has gotten JB into the bathroom, but in the course of actually cleaning her up, the same thing happens and JB hits her head against the toilet or edge of the bathtub. Or maybe, Patsy is carrying a struggling JB into the bathroom and looses hold and drops her against the toilet or tub.

In any case, a cover up has to be done - you could explain a child slipping and falling down the stairs or falling off a stool as an accident, but what sort of explanation can you give for a 6 year old falling into a bathtub while being bathed in the middle of the night?

And, I can see the family pulling together to cover up an accident if the accident happened in a way that would be embarrassing or look 'bad".
I can't see Patsy staying with John for this many years if she helped cover up evidence of sexual abuse (even if John was the abuser and Patsy was the accidental killer); IMHO, something would have come up that gave that away.

And Burke might be involved because of the pineapple. he might have been allowed to have a snack of pineapple, but JB was not to have any. If he gave some to JB when he knew his mom didn't want her to have any, he would be involved. From mom's point of view, it might have been his 'fault' that JB had an accident that night because if he had not allowed her to have some of his pineapple, she would not have had a BM in her pants. That could explain Patsy's 'prickly' behavior when Burke was brought up in police interviews (i. e., to Patsy, he would have been the beginning of the chain of events that lead to JB's death).

 

one other thing that I noticed, but didn't think about until this morning is that the autopsy talks about what was in the large intestine and the small intestine and reports "The large intestine contains soft green fecal material."

It doesn't mention anything about the rectum.
Is that significant? I don't know, but I think it's strange that the report doesn't at least say rectum appeared normal or something.

 

nah

The rectum is probably just considered part of the large intestine for this report.
The only way it would need to be mentioned is if something unusual was found there.

 

The large intesting does include the rectum, but, if you were looking at a small child for possible sexual abuse, the rectum would be part of the area you would expect to be of interest. So, I am surprised to see it not listed.

EDITED TO ADD: When I re-looked at the autopsy before I originally wrote this post, I had looked at the part that includes the internal exam of the intestinal tract. I had not noticed that there is information about the rectum on page 4 of the autopsy (a link to that page from acandyrose.com). That page does talk about the external exam of the genital area and includes the following information:
"No recent or remote anal or other perineal trauma is identified."
So, that means they did comment about the rectum. Why that is important is that sexual abuse of a child often involves the rectum (obviously why for male vitums of sexual abuse, but often also for female victims of sexual abuse since the anus is quite expandable and the perpetrator can penetrate it when it is not possible to penetrate vaginally).

 

The lawyer certainly had a problem with her answering the question. From Patsy and John's 2000 Atlanta interviews (for new readers, the numbers are line numbers of the transcript). The question is from Mr. Kane: