My New Revised Theory as to what happened to JBR!

After reading more about this case Ive changed my mind about what happened to JBR. Thanks to all of you on here who have "schooled" me on this subject and given so much of your time, effort and research into this case, and after reading the autopsy report, listening to the 911 call, and doing my own research Ive come to a new conclusion. I first posted on here that I believed Thomas's version that patsy must have killed JR accidently, but Now Im thinking that it had to be John. This is why;

1.) Both Athena and I have agreed, after heated debates lol (and she knows what I mean hehe) that the strangulation came first, due to lack of blood that would have been under the skull if she was alive and also the fact that after viewing the autopsy pics those are clearly nail marks in her neck where she either consciously or unconsciously (and i say that because the body will instintually try to save itself even if you are midly unconscious and try to fight off whatever is stopping the breathing) and I dont believe after a blow like that to the head she would have been fighting anything.

2.) Now being that I think she was strangled first, I definately do not believe Patsy would have done that because of bed wetting or any other reason for that matter. I think that John may have done it to silence her for something, some secret such as molestation which would account for a six year old child to have bed wetting problems like she did (that is a known sign and symptom of child molestation) doesnt mean that ever child that pees him/her self is being molested, but rather frequently molested children wet themselves, end up in pull ups way longer than normal children, and some even smeer feces on walls or deficate in unusual places (I leaned that in psych class). It would also account for the fact that she had been to the pediatricians (according to some sources I read) numerous times for bladder infections and such. It would also account for the "cronic" inflamation of the vaginal mucousa (sp?)that was found in the autopsy which according to Dr. Cyril Wrect had to have had 72 hours after penetration or disruption to occur. Also note that when a doctor say s something is cronic it usually means its happened before and not just that one time. Now I dont know where Dr. Cyril got this info from but I read that he said that she only had half a hymen left and it was unlikely that it was due to the "digital penetration" that was noted. Although there is not definitive proof of molestation, I can not think of any other reason, that he would have strangled her unless it was to silence her.

3.) Another poster mentioned something I had never thought of before (cant remember who it was), although I knew and thought it was odd that Patsy was wearing the same clothes she had on the night before, I just figured she was so busy trying to plot the staged murder scene that she just never changed. But then the other poster mentioned that she could have done it purposely to make sure that the next day when she flung herself on JB';s body she left the tale tale sign of evidence that was left (the fibers of patsys jacket etc) which is what I think is the "smoking gun" in this case. The poster IMO was right, Both Patsy and John are not stupid people and would have known it would have not been smart to keep the same clothes unless they sat there and figured out and said hey, we shoudl keep them on so when the police see us flinging ourselves on her and touching her that is the excuse as to why our dna, fibers etc are all over her!!! Plus John certainly had to know he was doing a terribly stupid thing by moving the body, ripping the duct tape off her mouth, and carrying her upstairs away from the crime scene, I absolutely REFUSE to believe that John was that dumb that he did not know that would contaminate the crime scene. I believe that they knew exactly what they were doing, and that is why he moved her, carried her up the stairs and patsy flung herself on top of JB, to make damn sure the evidence they would find would be accounted for. That was clever no doubt.

4) Anyway back to the part where John decided to silence her, hence she screamed out for help and no one came, (this prob being around midnight when the neighbor heard the scream) I believe that maybe john lied to patsy and told her that something happened accidently to JB but patsy probably had her suspicions but decided it best to cover it up. So they made plans, they decided that while patsy was upstairs on the second floor composing the rediculously long and female voiced randsom letter that John would take care of the body, staging the scene etc. Another obvious factor is why would an intruder take so long in the house to do all of that and why would he wipe down the body so carefully as not to leave any evidence at all on her body, doesnt make since, JR probably wiped her down to get rid of his evidence on her, accidently leaving a small amount of fiber from his shirt sleeve in her underwear... (we have already discussed that the dna which was fractured dna could have come from the manufacturing plant. (which when someone looked into it they found other male dna present on brand new underwear from the same bloomies underwear corp.) Also I ve said this before , go to forumsforjustice.org and check out what those size 12 undies that JR dressed her in look like on a small little girl, it is sooo rediculous, it doesnt make since why a killer would go through her drawers and try to redress her in that brand new size 12 undies that said wednesday on them, why would an intruder purposely waste time finding the wednesday undies when he could have grabbed anything, and there is no way in hell I believe those size 12 undies it what patsy put on her for the christmas party, they would have bunched all up on her and stuck out like a soar thumb, just go to that website and see for yourselves.

4.) There is also another poster on here that mentioned something that I thought about quite often, it is the LACK OF intruder dna that is the compelling evidence. There is no way an intruder could have taken that much time in that house, writting the randsom note, staging the scene, cleaning the body, finding a spot to hide the body, going from first floor, to second floor and then down to basement without leaving something behind, I dont buy it! To completely get rid of every single piece of dna, fingerprint, fiber evidence to keep him/herself from being caught, there usually is always something left behind that would show some type of evidence. But NO OTHER DNA??? how is that possible???

5)The obvious lack of police coperation , etc etc, and whatever else I wrote on the first post I posted...these are the reasons I think JR did it, I cant wait to read Det Ardnts book because she might know something that we dont! She must have her reasons for thinking JR did it and not patsy and I betcha we will find that out when her book comes out!

[shill]

At least you dropped the bed wetting motive, it's a start.
IMO Molestation is the only plausable motive for RDI.
Ironic the opening in JBs hymen is the same diameter as the paint brush handle.

[lucky13]

humanpoly, For the most part, I agree with your theory. IMO, John did it because of his molesting JonBenet. I'm sure that he wasn't getting any action from Patsy. After all, what woman would feel like having sex while suffering from ovarian cancer? Not me. I think that John's molestation was a very 'mild version', yet still very bad & very wrong, of course. He probably tried to convince JB that her cooperating with him was helping out him & mommy. JB didn't like it though & was threatening to tell on him, & he couldn't have that. I do NOT believe that she was strangled first though. The only marks I see on her neck are the small hemmorages, common with strangulation. Where are the fingernail marks that you mentioned?? Why aren't they mentioned in the autopsy report? I don't think that John would have strangled her first- taking the chance of her looking at him while he did it & fighting him. Too messy. And she would know it was her Daddy trying to kill her. No way. I think that HE told her that Santa was waiting for her in the basement with a special secret gift. Then he very quickly bashed her in the head with the baseball bat. She never saw it coming. Quick & easy. The garrotting was done as staging to cover up his molestation only. As far as Patsy writing the note & being involved in the cover up....I don't know....it's possible. I agree her writing is very similar & the note does sound like it was written by a woman. It just makes more sense to me if she didn't participate. (HER calling 911) The only way that I can see her helping in the staging, & then calling 911, is that she & John disagreed on what to do with JB's body- John wanting to just dispose of it, & Patsy not being able to accept that. MOO of course. I agree that there is no evidence of an intruder. It all points directly to a Ramsey.

[LindaA]

The only way I can accept RDI is that the head bashing came first. But then I'm left with the problem of the strangling as a staged cover-up. I have a problem with it because it just doesn't make sense. There are far easier ways to cover the head injury. Throwing her unconscious body down the basement steps would have done it nicely and could have been easily explained.

I don't see how the strangling could have masked the sexual abuse, as some one just posted.

The problem for me is that the evidence just doesn't add up either way you look at it...IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

The strangling did not come first. There are no nail marks on her neck, those are from the strangling. If she had been able to reach her neck, you'd see long furrows where she tried to pull the cord away, and her skin would be under her nails. Her skin was not found under her nails, and neither was her blood. The only thing found under her nails was her own DNA and some that was not hers.

If she had been conscious while being strangled, there would be bruising on her body - specifically her hands and feet, where she would have injured herself fighting her strangler. These are called defensive wounds. There are no defensive wounds on JonBenet. Her hands and feet are not bruised at all. there is no bruising or scratches on her forearms and shins, two other areas that generally end up with defensive wounds. Her wrists do not show any chafing or bruising at all, which indicates she did not struggle against wrist restraints.

Her tongue and the insides of her cheeks are smooth and unblemished - usually the tongue and cheeks of a strangulation victim are bit up when the person is struggling to breathe. Strangulation victims injure themselves quite a bit during the strangulation because the brain kicks into survival mode and nothing matters except the driving need to draw another breath. We see none of that on JonBenet, which indicates she was unconscious when strangled.

The head wound came first, because it was fully developed, with the temporal lobes bruised from being shaken, and the brain swelling from the injury. It appears as though there is not much blood, but there is - there are three areas of pooled blood in her brain. One of them covers almost the entire hemisphere of the brain. The pools of blood don't seem like much because they were pressed flat by the swelling of the brain. You wouldn't see this blood and the swelling if the head wound came while she was near death from being strangled. The development of the head wound shows she was alive and her heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and it continued to beat for another ten minutes to an hour before she was strangled - that's how long experts say it would take for a head wound like that to develop to the point it was.

As for JonBenet's vaginal opening being the same size as the paint brush, that doesn't happen right away. It would take some time and repeated occasions before her vaginal opening had been widened like that - twice the normal size of a 6 year old girl's vaginal opening. I don't know anyone can look at JonBenet's medical history and the state her vagina was in in death and not conclude someone had been molesting her. IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA
The only way I can accept RDI is that the head bashing came first. But then I'm left with the problem of the strangling as a staged cover-up. I have a problem with it because it just doesn't make sense. There are far easier ways to cover the head injury. Throwing her unconscious body down the basement steps would have done it nicely and could have been easily explained.

I don't see how the strangling could have masked the sexual abuse, as some one just posted.

The problem for me is that the evidence just doesn't add up either way you look at it...IMO.

Many people think the strangling was to cover up evidence of manual strangulation or some other type of injury to the neck that may have occurred before or during the time she was hit on the head. Some people think the attacker may have grabbed JonBenet by the collar or wrapped their hands around her neck. Some people think the scarf on the bed in the picture of JonBenet's room may have been used to strangle her first.

I don't think the strangulation was to cover up the head wound as much as it was a diversion for police. I think they already thought JonBenet was dead from the head wound. Experts say a wound of that magnitude would have knocked a child unconscious immediately and sent her into a coma.

There would be a slower heartbate and lowered blood pressure and shallower breathing from the shock and injury. I suspect the person who strangled didn't realize she was still alive and tied the cord around her neck as staging to make it look like some intruder killed her, certainly not a parent...after all, who would believe that a parent would strangle their own child? On top of that, it will explain any marks that may already be on her neck from being choked prior to the strangling.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

<snip>


As for JonBenet's vaginal opening being the same size as the paint brush, that doesn't happen right away. It would take some time and repeated occasions before her vaginal opening had been widened like that - twice the normal size of a 6 year old girl's vaginal opening. I don't know anyone can look at JonBenet's medical history and the state her vagina was in in death and not conclude someone had been molesting her. IMO.

You have been called to testify in a court of law regarding the above statement. What is your proof? Your evidence?

[nuisanceposter]

Are you asking for links?

[lucky13]

Originally posted by LindaA
The only way I can accept RDI is that the head bashing came first. But then I'm left with the problem of the strangling as a staged cover-up. I have a problem with it because it just doesn't make sense. There are far easier ways to cover the head injury. Throwing her unconscious body down the basement steps would have done it nicely and could have been easily explained.

I don't see how the strangling could have masked the sexual abuse, as some one just posted.

The problem for me is that the evidence just doesn't add up either way you look at it...IMO.

I guess I didn't make my theory very clear....I didn't mean that the garrotting was done to mask the sexual abuse. The garrotting was done only to make it seem like some sexual pervert had done it for sexual kicks- along with the inserted paintbrush handle. (John NEEDED to insert the paintbrush in an attempt to hide his previous sex abuse.) THAT is the reason for her murder- to prevent JB from telling on John.
MOO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
At least you dropped the bed wetting motive, it's a start.
IMO Molestation is the only plausable motive for RDI.
Ironic the opening in JBs hymen is the same diameter as the paint brush handle.

Not exactly. There was ample evidence of digital penetration. Also her vaginal opening was twice the normal size. Why do you think they called in the sexual abuse investigators once the autopsy was done. Did you see the link to the interview with the sexual abuse investigator in interview with Julie Hayden last night? It was an eye opener for sure . This was on fox just last night. I gave you all a heads up on this in advance. Twice I said check your local program listings. Then provided the link so you could read it if you missed viewing it. I am now willing to concede sombody probably was abusing JonBenet in that way prior to the night of her murder. DId the paint brush cover that up? Or at least it sure seems like all the signs and evidence point to that. That would of course by my opinion based on how all the signs were there. And theycalled in the sexual abuse investigators. Etc.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Not exactly. There was ample evidence of digital penetration. Also her vaginal opening was twice the normal size. Why do you think they called in the sexual abuse investigators once the autopsy was done. Did you see the link to the interview with the sexual abuse investigator in interview with Julie Hayden last night? It was an eye opener for sure . This was on fox just last night. I gave you all a heads up on this in advance. Twice I said check your local program listings. Then provided the link so you could read it if you missed viewing it. I am now willing to concede sombody probably was abusing JonBenet in that way prior to the night of her murder. DId the paint brush cover that up? Or at least it sure seems like all the signs and evidence point to that. That would of course by my opinion based on how all the signs were there. And theycalled in the sexual abuse investigators. Etc.

Oh please -- there has been no proven sexual abuse. How about reading the story you posted and watched:

From the Julie Hayden interview with Holly Smith:
Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all



http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/p...Y&pageId=3.2.1

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Are you asking for links?

I'm asking for proof that someone had been molesting JonBenet.

What medical record? What specifically did the autopsy say about prior sexual molestation? I don't recall reading that.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


Oh please -- there has been no proven sexual abuse. How about reading the story you posted and watched:

From the Julie Hayden interview with Holly Smith:
Smith adds, "There was an indication of trauma in the vaginal area."

The coroner's autopsy discovered evidence investigators say indicates JonBenet suffered vaginal trauma the night she was murdered. However the autopsy report also describes evidence of possible prior vaginal trauma. Experts disagree about the significance of that.

It could indicate previous injury or infection, a sign of abuse, or nothing at all



http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/p...Y&pageId=3.2.1

It could be ....but I don't have to believe as you do. And I do not. Also as to Julie Hayden and the report. Ever wonder how I had the heads up .... it was not from local listings. Promotion or advertisement.....try to do a favor. Shot down didn't want anyone to miss it. This is the thanks.....See if I heads up you all again.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


It could be ....but I don't have to believe as you do. And I do not. Also as to Julie Hayden and the report. Ever wonder how I had the heads up .... it was not from local listings. Promotion or advertisement.....try to do a favor. Shot down didn't want anyone to miss it. This is the thanks.....See if I heads up you all again.

Also this report never said if there was abuse that it was the Ramseys that abused her just their was enough suspicion of abuse to warrant bringing in the specific investigators for this. So you jump to conclusions then Athena that if there was abuse it had to be the Ramseys who perpetrated it? I never said once it was the Ramseys who may have been the ones if there was abuse. Only that my mind is changed regards the sexual issues. That is my personal right is it not. Sometime I swear ..... you don't think a television broadcast is going to cover their own @ss with enough hypothetical....as in the statement ...or nothing at all....to keep lawsuits from flying. TSK. Oh please to coin your phrase.

[bullmoose]

According to the story, CK, the trauma observed could be proof of previous infection or injury; or nothing at all. That is underwhelming to me. This Holly Smith was pulled off the investigation by the territorial BPD before she had much time on the case, again I have to applaud the BPD for their dedication to finding out the truth of the case. I find her statement very strange, that there was fecal material in most of Jonbenet's underwear; I am a grandfather, but I was father to two ordinary daughters while they grew up, and accidents in underwear were just something that occurred, especially until they were six or seven. If they urinated, wash them, but if they had skids in their stinkies, if that is what Holly Smith is referring to, the underwear was always treated with whatever my wife used on such stains and then washed. My wife would not put stained stinkies in my drawer if they didn't come clean, and absolutely not in ny daughters drawers: if they after several tries through the machine still had skids[fecal stains] they were thrown out. My daughters and I think most normal children won't wear soiled underwear. I find this statement by this woman to be very strange indeed.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
According to the story, CK, the trauma observed could be proof of previous infection or injury; or nothing at all. That is underwhelming to me. This Holly Smith was pulled off the investigation by the territorial BPD before she had much time on the case, again I have to applaud the BPD for their dedication to finding out the truth of the case. I find her statement very strange, that there was fecal material in most of Jonbenet's underwear; I am a grandfather, but I was father to two ordinary daughters while they grew up, and accidents in underwear were just something that occurred, especially until they were six or seven. If they urinated, wash them, but if they had skids in their stinkies, if that is what Holly Smith is referring to, the underwear was always treated with whatever my wife used on such stains and then washed. My wife would not put stained stinkies in my drawer if they didn't come clean, and absolutely not in ny daughters drawers: if they after several tries through the machine still had skids[fecal stains] they were thrown out. My daughters and I think most normal children won't wear soiled underwear. I find this statement by this woman to be very strange indeed.

I dont find it that strange because my niece's husband had been molesting their daughter. One of the things the psycologists suggested before when she was only suspicious there might be problems is to look for signs of return to bedwetting, defecation in the panties. Hiding the defecation stained undies etc etc. Eventually he confessed to this and did time. My neices daughter has grown up scarred and traumatized however. Still has difficulty in relationships. As for your perception of this officer she is coming out to discuss this openly for the first time. Saying there were problems. You can discount her concerns as rubbish or find credibility in this. JonBenet exhibited signs of one who may have been sexually abused if not by the Ramseys by someone. The having any adult wipe her etc. Sorry you find the statements strange. I didn't not at all.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


You have been called to testify in a court of law regarding the above statement. What is your proof? Your evidence?

Hypothetically or can she expect her subpeona?

[bullmoose]

I find the placing of fecally contaminated underwear in a drawer very strange; either they are cleaned in the wash or they are thrown away in my house. I just wonder if this pile of underwear was taken into evidence by the BPD; why was this woman taken off the case?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I find the placing of fecally contaminated underwear in a drawer very strange; either they are cleaned in the wash or they are thrown away in my house. I just wonder if this pile of underwear was taken into evidence by the BPD; why was this woman taken off the case?

Give me a week and I could get that clarified for you. However my thought and this is only my thought ..... Lou Smit. It seemed there was almost like a line in the sand or the dance tempo went from Calypso to the Waltz. Everything was going one direction then Lou Smit came on board .... things got pretty territorial about then. Some believe that Smit was hired to promote the Intruder theory and then when he went to work for the Ramseys....it seemed in retrospect like a done deal.

[Zoey]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I find the placing of fecally contaminated underwear in a drawer very strange; either they are cleaned in the wash or they are thrown away in my house. I just wonder if this pile of underwear was taken into evidence by the BPD; why was this woman taken off the case?

Same questions I had. There were 15-19 pairs of panties taken in on the search warrants dated 12/26 and 12/27, yet this woman went in three days later and found fecal stained panties in her drawer? Where did all the other panties come from? Why did they take 15-19 pair of panties but not the ones that obviously had something on them?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Zoey


Same questions I had. There were 15-19 pairs of panties taken in on the search warrants dated 12/26 and 12/27, yet this woman went in three days later and found fecal stained panties in her drawer? Where did all the other panties come from? Why did they take 15-19 pair of panties but not the ones that obviously had something on them?

Perhaps all evidence had not been sealed and bagged and taken into evidence as of yet?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I find the placing of fecally contaminated underwear in a drawer very strange; either they are cleaned in the wash or they are thrown away in my house. I just wonder if this pile of underwear was taken into evidence by the BPD; why was this woman taken off the case?

This woman has a name its Holly Smith she also has a title. Sexual Crimes Detective She has been highly trained to see the signs of sexual crimes against children. If you have concerns about her .....follow up call BPD or Fox 31? I mean I think she was legitimate. She was called in...I think that alone signifies concern.

[Ames]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


It could be ....but I don't have to believe as you do. And I do not. Also as to Julie Hayden and the report. Ever wonder how I had the heads up .... it was not from local listings. Promotion or advertisement.....try to do a favor. Shot down didn't want anyone to miss it. This is the thanks.....See if I heads up you all again.

The IDI's may not have appreciated your link, but...as a RDI...I appreciated it. It was very eye opening. I am sure that I speak for other RDI's as well. Thank you again for posting the link. Please don't let the IDI's discourage you...they are going to try and shoot down everything that a RDI says. John Ramsey himself, could confess to the murder, and the IDI's would say that he is "confused and distraught"...even though the murder happened 10 years ago. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by bullmoose
I find the placing of fecally contaminated underwear in a drawer very strange; either they are cleaned in the wash or they are thrown away in my house. I just wonder if this pile of underwear was taken into evidence by the BPD; why was this woman taken off the case?

I was wondering if maybe the panties were just STAINED from fecal matter? Maybe they had been washed...but, still stained. IMO I would think that a bunch of fecal contaminated underwear, would cause a very unpleasant odor...sort of like having a pile of dirty diapers in the room. IMO IMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Ames


The IDI's may not have appreciated your link, but...as a RDI...I appreciated it. It was very eye opening. I am sure that I speak for other RDI's as well. Thank you again for posting the link. Please don't let the IDI's discourage you...they are going to try and shoot down everything that a RDI says. John Ramsey himself, could confess to the murder, and the IDI's would say that he is "confused and distraught"...even though the murder happened 10 years ago. IMO

No doubt!! Amnesia Alzheimers Dementia and Senility all at once. Confused and distraught.... Sounds like a case of
Chirpees to me. Its a canarial disease... totally untweetable.

[Ames]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


No doubt!! Amnesia Alzheimers Dementia and Senility all at once. Confused and distraught.... Sounds like a case of
Chirpees to me. Its a canarial disease... totally untweetable.

LOL...you got THAT right!

[bullmoose]

After posting earlier wondering at the lot of fecally contaminated underwear that were taken from the house, I asked my wife for advice as to why they were there, either unwashed or not successfully washed, could she think of areason they would be there.She said to me that of course no washed but still stained underwear ever went back into any of our underwear drawers; she put soiled stinkies in bleach before washing; almost without exception, no matter how bad the stain, they came clean. But in that rare case that a piece didn't come clean, it was thrown out, without exception. When I described what I had just read about the soiled underwear of Jonbenet, she laughed and said" I bet when she had that kind of accident she was hiding the soiled underwear, from embarassment and the cops found her hiding place." My wife said that her own mother, who lives with us and has Alzheimer's disease does the exact same thing. My wife says she finds the soiled underwear by the smell, hidden in her mother's room. And so she washes them again. Mystery solved

[Ames]

Originally posted by bullmoose
After posting earlier wondering at the lot of fecally contaminated underwear that were taken from the house, I asked my wife for advice as to why they were there, either unwashed or not successfully washed, could she think of areason they would be there.She said to me that of course no washed but still stained underwear ever went back into any of our underwear drawers; she put soiled stinkies in bleach before washing; almost without exception, no matter how bad the stain, they came clean. But in that rare case that a piece didn't come clean, it was thrown out, without exception. When I described what I had just read about the soiled underwear of Jonbenet, she laughed and said" I bet when she had that kind of accident she was hiding the soiled underwear, from embarassment and the cops found her hiding place." My wife said that her own mother, who lives with us and has Alzheimer's disease does the exact same thing. My wife says she finds the soiled underwear by the smell, hidden in her mother's room. And so she washes them again. Mystery solved

Another poster said the same thing about the soiled undies being hidden. She said that she knew of a little girl (I believe she stated that she was related to her) that was being molested by her dad. She would pee and stinky in her underwear, and hide the ones with the fecal matter. I would think that ONE of them would have really smelled up the room, wonder how JB could have had alot of them, without Patsy noticing....or SMELLING? Thats why I was wondering if they may have just been stained. You are right though...those would have probably been thrown out. My guess is, the fecal matter was on the panties...and JB hid them...and Patsy was such a terrible housekeeper (guess thats why she hired one) that she didn't notice...or maybe got used to the smell. IMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by bullmoose
After posting earlier wondering at the lot of fecally contaminated underwear that were taken from the house, I asked my wife for advice as to why they were there, either unwashed or not successfully washed, could she think of areason they would be there.She said to me that of course no washed but still stained underwear ever went back into any of our underwear drawers; she put soiled stinkies in bleach before washing; almost without exception, no matter how bad the stain, they came clean. But in that rare case that a piece didn't come clean, it was thrown out, without exception. When I described what I had just read about the soiled underwear of Jonbenet, she laughed and said" I bet when she had that kind of accident she was hiding the soiled underwear, from embarassment and the cops found her hiding place." My wife said that her own mother, who lives with us and has Alzheimer's disease does the exact same thing. My wife says she finds the soiled underwear by the smell, hidden in her mother's room. And so she washes them again. Mystery solved

Please take the time to read up on the psycology and signs of sexually abused children. This is one of the signs. Like it or not.