Evidence of....... Evidence suggestive of.....

:hug: :blush: Awwwww...you are too sweet!!

 

The nightgown in the wine cellar

At Topix, Why_Nut gave an interesting link to an enlarged picture of the blanket found together with the nightgown:

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j149/whynut/vlcsnap-603423.jpg

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey/T6H7O13O45RRHNIRR/p2

Several RDI theories exist as to the nightgown:

It could have been attached to the blanket via static cling when Patsy took it out of the dryer (the housekeeper's theory), and she he may not have been aware of it when she put the blanket over her in the dark wine cellar.

Another possibility: the Ramseys wanted to redress JonBenet to make an "abducted from the bed" theory more plausible, but it was too late: rigor mortis had begun to set in. Then they forgot to put the nightgown back from where they took it.

But the "parental care" explanation is possible too.

Imo is even the most probable explanation, given the photo Why_Nut linked to. This is the first time have seen the photo enlarged, and it looks like the nightgown was deliberatey put there, maybe to place her head on.

It may look like a contradiction that parents callous enough to defile and strangle their daughter for staging purposes would care enough to put a nightgown next to her.

But it impulses of parental care can occur in even the most horrific crimes. Jeffrey MacDonald for example bludgeoned and stabbed his whole family, and yet he tucked his children in later, even putting a baby bottle next to his small daughter's mouth as he put her down in her bed, awash in her own blood.

 

I don't have an edit button today, but this is the way it goes for me, Moab. It's a hit and a miss. I felt better when it happened to JC too. KK was another one who didn't have it all of the time(?).

Something happened! It's here! (?). What is the time limit?

 

That is the first enlarged pic of the blanket in situ I have seen, and the first as well where it is full color. Thank you for posting it. The pink nightie shows up clearly for the first time. I am leaning towards it being stuck to the blanket with static cling and not noticed in the dark room, but there is still some troubling aspect to this. The wineceller had no windows. There was no reason why the placement and staging of the body couldn't be done with the lights on in there. And frankly, the pink nightgown can easily be distinguished from the white blanket, probably even with a flashlight. I can see the flashlight being needed to move about the house, including the basement areas, because other rooms in the basement did have uncovered windows. A light there would have been seen by anyone looking. And with the scream...they might be looking.
Yet, ST agrees she was found in the shirt she wore to the White's. I have to say that PR's story about just keeping the shirt on and pulling on the long johns to be used as pajama bottoms does seem like that is what happened. If the nightie had been put on her when they returned and then soiled, that would be apparent. If it was NOT soiled, why remove it and redress in the white shirt and long johns? They could still have changed the panties. And an intruder taking her from her bed dressed in the pink nightie would have had NO idea what she wore that day. So the nightie was there accidentally and not noticed OR it was deliberately put there by someone who knew it was her favorite nightie (obviously something no SFF or intruder would know).

 

DeeDee,

Just exactly what JonBenét wore that night we'll never know,because Patsy first reported JonBenét had worn a red top and later changed this.

Bolding mine.

 

Bolding mine

 

Does anyone remember whether Steve Thomas, when interviewing Patsy in 1997, asked her why she changed her story about the red turtleneck?

 

weird

This is weird but remember that PR wanted JBR to match her outfit that night. Maybe PR changed JBR to the red turtleneck after they got home so she would already be wearing it in the morning when they got up to leave and then PR would wear what she wore the night before (she didn't seem to mind rewearing her clothes) and then they would match for their trip. Then when all h*ll broke out that night she was changed back into the white top. Of course the rope was tied on the wrists after she was changed. Just a thought.

 

It seems that no one EVER asked Patsy "Why?," or "How?" or "When?" as a follow-up to an interrogation question. It is maddening to think that Patsy might well have cracked and told all, with just a little pushing from detectives. I don't see Patsy as being able to hold up to true police questioning, but she was always treated as if she were a delicate crystal object and would shatter if they even raised their voices, let alone pinned her down in one of her lies.

 

Bolding mine

 

Thank you Little for sharing some of your research with me. It sure saved me some scanning time. :rose:

Steve Thomas didn't question Patsy here about changing her statement "from the red top to the white one with the star, rashomon, and I don't know why he didn't(?). If I come across information where he does, I will post it.

<o></o>
<o>Bolding mine</o>

 

There is only one "she" we know for certain wore a red turtleneck that night, and that person is Patsy Ramsey. I'm thinking she was cluing them in about herself in the third person, not JonBenet. (And going to bed doesn't necessarily mean that she stayed there.)

 

PR changed her story about many things. And no one ever called her on it. I suppose had it gone to trial, or had she been charged with the crime, these are discussions that they could have had then, but it is very frustrating to see them just let it go. It's as if LE doesn't remember what she said, either.

 

This is Evidence!

I'm quite sure that if Patsy changed her story, it was to cover up, nothing less.

Why she changed her story isn't the question; the question is what was Patsy covering up? and was she doing it knowingly or unwittingly? And was she covering evidence of that night? or evidence prior to the actions of that night?

This also draws to the thread's opening question about the direction evidence points to. Here we have a coverup, pure and simple. Patsy changed her story as to what JonBenet was wearing. Why? That's evidence #1.

Evidence #2 is that evidence removed from the scene (the original clothing) and Evidence #3 (or maybe not) is the new evidence (or not) replacing original evidence. Confused?

Evidently it didn't confuse Lin Wood at all...he took nonevidence (Evidence #3) and turned it into killer evidence (evidence #1).

The real questions are who changed JonBenet clothes, when, and why? (Wait, we know why), so who and when are the questions.

Who is important for many reasons, but foremost is the question, did this person change evidence, knowingly or unwittingly? Or unwittingly plant new evidence?

Minute traces of male DNA were found under JBR's nails and in her underwear. So it matches! Does this mean she scratched her killer? I doubt it; otherwise there would have been enough of a sample to identify. The dna left on JBR is unidentifiable. JBR could have easily picked up loose dna throughout the day, perhaps longer!, and then transferred it to her vaginal area easily, unwittingly. That alone makes this dna is questionable.

Then there's the fact that her clothes were changed. Was it possible that in preparing the body for burial in the basement, for example, did Patsy wipe down JBR's body, including her hands, and then wipe her vaginally (as evidenced by the fiber evidence?) and transferred the dna.

Both John and Patsy handled the body as fibers from John's sweater and Patsy's jacket were found on the body. Why was THIS evidence ignored and emphasis placed on the unidentifiable dna?

The bogus dna evidence needs to be de-emphasized and the fiber evidence reinforced. If the BPD wants to know who handled the body, then the evidence that identifies those people should be vigorously reinvestigated.

I'm willing to bet that there's unidentifiable nonevidence on Caylee Anthony's remains that was ignored in lieu of identifiable evidence like duct tape and hearts. It's about time JonBenet got that same kind of evidentiary consideration!

 

What did she wear to the Whites?

If memory serves me correctly, (and note it's been fading these 12 years!), the red turtleneck scene occurred before going to the Whites.

Here's where my memory fades. What did she wear to the Whites, and wasn't that different from what she was found in?

So the real question is: how many changes did JBR go through that day. And then the next question might be: could all or any one or mixture of these changes have caused unidentifiable male dna to transfer onto JBR?

 

Nice to see your name here again Ginja. Yes the red turtleneck scene took place before going to the Whites. According to Patsy, the white top with the star was worn to the Whites. We've never seen any photos of the White's party to confirm this.

Steve Thomas should have queried Patsy more about changing her statement of JonBenét wearing a white top with the star; the one she was found dead in, and not the red one she had stated to the cops on 26th December in her own house.

 

I'm not sure, looking at this again after so many years, that the top change should be as challenged as the bottoms. The bottoms are where all the action took place, i.e., possible molestation that night, changing pants, underwear, wiping down, a lot of transferrance going on, including the very likely probability of the dna evidence being transferred innocently and having nothing to do with the crime.

It also points to there being nothing to cover up from the waist up, thus no need to change the top. Now that Patsy's no longer here to answer questions, the ability to nitpick is lost. So what the BPD needs to do is go after real evidence and stay away from bringing up too many what ifs. Dealing with the facts is work enough.

Look at the so-called dna evidence. It matches nothing, no one. The most they can say is that it's male. No timeline, no idea of age, no idea of how it was transferred.

By the same token, look at the one hair in the Anthony car trunk where decomposition had set into the hair. Proof at that point Caylee was dead. Yet Boulder can't say diddly squat about the lame dna that has no substance and is so minute and so degraded that it can't be identified. And yet they're sticking to their guns that it belongs to the killer?

The real connection to that dna is that it came from underneath JBR's fingernails and that it was not fresh but degraded. Connecting that fingernail dna to the panty dna begs the question: how did it get there? And keep in mind that the dna transferred into the big bloomers put on her after she was attacked and either unconscious or dead. So obviously, albeit it's circumstantial, but the dna transferred when JBR was out of it...she didn't transfer it, someone accidentally transferred it when they wiped her down and redressed her.

By the same token, the dna was comingled with the blood, indicating to me that the dna was transferred into the vaginal area, mixed with body fluids in the vaginal cavity, and ran into the big bloomers probably when she was being moved into the basement.

If having the same top on in death as she did at the Whites points to anything, it probably points to the fact that JonBenet did not go to bed that night. Besides, we knew that already. Burke's testimony was that he watched his sister walk upstairs. She also had her pineapple snack. Maybe Thomas should have pushed more on why JBR wasn't in her pjs.

 

We only have Patsy's statement on that. She claims to have had a riff with JonBenet about this garment before they went to the Whites.

She did not wear the red turtleneck to the Whites, she wore the white sirt in which she was later found in.
But according to S. Thomas, Patsy initially told the police JonBenet had been wearing the red turtleneck to bed.

Absolutely. In his interview with Patsy, Steve Thomas should have confronted Patsy with these conflicting statements of hers.

Dr. Henry Lee tested factory-new Bloomies underwear and it turned out that foreign DNA on them is a frequent finding.
Therefore JonBenet's's blood seeping on the garment would naturally be comingled with the DNA already being there.

Why oh why did no interviewer ever confront the Ramseys with that bombshell statement by Burke completely contradicing their own story??