by Cottonstar and Juror13
What should we make of the pink Barbie nightgown (12KKY) that was found next to JonBenét’s body in the wine cellar? It’s a piece of evidence that doesn’t fit the scene. It doesn’t belong.
There’s long been what we believe to be a myth that the nightgown is somehow innocently lying next to JonBenét as a random grab from the dryer or a symbol of comfort left by the killer or an accessory who had some sympathy for her.
There’s no question that at some point during or after the murder, based on her injuries and evidence of wiping, JonBenét’s clothing was removed and possibly changed. With that in mind, what does a discarded piece of clothing owned by the victim tell us?
We believe it’s a critical piece of evidence that’s long been ignored. Let’s examine why.
In 2000, Barbara Walters asked the Ramseys about the nightgown in the wine cellar. This is what John had to say:
JOHN: That’s a very strange… that nightgown should not have been there. It’s, it’s, a clue of some type. We don’t know what.
John is right. It is strange. It shouldn’t be there. Perhaps this next bit of info will shed some light on why it is…
In the last days of 1996, DNA tests revealed JonBenét’s pink nightgown had blood stains on it. Those stains belonged to JonBenét.
Why does her nightgown that supposedly hadn’t been worn that night, or the night before, have her blood on it? Furthermore, why is it balled up next to JonBenét at the murder scene?
An even bigger question to ponder… when JonBenét was found, she wasn’t outwardly bleeding from any exposed areas of her body, so when did that blood get on the nightgown?
Now, take that information and ask yourself, if there’s significance to Burke’s tDNA being found on four areas of her nightgown?
We mentioned this in our last post. Burke could NOT be excluded on ALL FOUR of the areas tested on the nightgown.
When John was questioned in 1998, he appears to let a clue slip.
JOHN: I laid her on the bed. I didn’t — I don’t remember the cover, if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up to put her NIGHTGOWN on and get her ready for bed.
Why doesn’t anybody discuss this? Certainly, Lacy and the Ramseys haven’t for obvious reasons. But if any third-party DNA was found on the nightgown, such as Karr’s, or the “Unknown Male 1’s”, then you can bet there would have been a press conference the same day.
What we’re looking for is what Kolar refers to as a “nexus of contact”. He found that in the undigested pineapple in JonBenét’s system and Burke’s fingerprints on the bowl containing the pineapple. We found it in the blood on her nightgown along with Burke’s skin cells.
Both nexuses between brother and sister occurred, presumably, after the Ramseys returned home on Christmas night. Isn’t this further evidence of JonBenét being awake after they returned? A nightgown belonging to JonBenét, with JonBenét’s blood on it, is lying next to her body in the wine cellar with Burke’s tDNA all over it. Not in one spot or two spots – four spots – on the exterior and interior of the bottom hem, and on the front and back of her right and left shoulder.
We believe JonBenét was wearing the nightgown when she was assaulted on Christmas night. We theorize the gown was left next to her on purpose but not with the intention of undoing or caring, but rather as a place to dump all blood evidence in the basement.
All opinions and conclusions included in this post are our own and we don’t claim to know the killer of JonBenét. Our goal is to uncover and bring to light the lesser-known truths of this case.
22 Replies to “The Pink Nightgown Paradox”
So frustrating how it seems like screaming facts like above will never bother being heard. Just ugh.
In the 1997 interview with police John Ramsey states he carried JonBenet upstairs and put her on the bed wearing her white sweater and black pants but nothing about a nightgown. I’ve looked in 1998 interviews and I do not find the reference you are quoting about Patsy putting a nightgown on her. Where is the quote? Also blood on the nightgown is referenced in The Bonita Papers, where else?
Hi Pauline, John’s reference to the nightgown is in the 1998 interview. Mike Kane asks him: “When you got to her bedroom, and she was still asleep at that point, did you put her in her bed? Then John gives that answer. As far as the blood on the nightgown – the most important place we’re referencing it from is the DNA testing completed Jan 15, 1997 – there’s a clip of that report in our blog post, take a look
Thank you Juror13. Then it must be your contention that the nightgown was not washed, or run through the drier – if touch DNA remained in the several locations listed. I’ve tried finding a copy of the DNA testing report and cannot – however I argue that no one would stage a scene placing a bloody nightgown that has been handled by Patsy and Burke, next to the body, and touch DNA would not survive the wash. Therefore, your assumption makes sense – that the basement was used as a dumping ground for discarded evidence and that neither the nightgown or the blanket was run through the wash, dried, and applied.
A look at the actual transcript 6/23/98 interview of John Ramsey with Lou Smit and Mike Kane down to page or reference number 0114 items #10-#15 Mike Kane asks John about carrying JonBenet in and laying her down on her bed the scenario ends with John stating “…and then Patsy took over getting her into bed” “…and then I went downstairs.” Nothing about knowing Patsy would follow up and put her nightgown on. It’s just not there.
If you do a word search for nightgown you will find it – it’s there. It’s between sections 0497-0498
14 MIKE KANE: The night before you
15 got home, I just had a couple of questions but
16 you covered it pretty much. When you were
17 saying you carried her upstairs. When you got
18 to her bedroom, and she was still asleep at that
19 point, did you put her in her bed?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: I laid her on the
21 bed. I didn’t — I don’t remember the cover,
22 if the bed was made or not, but I laid her on
23 the bed. Because I knew Patsy would follow up
24 to put her nightgown on and get her ready for
Finally found the DNA testing results you have extracted in the clippings above – from Bode Technology case files. However the areas you are saying that Patsy and Burke could not be excluded OR included from are from the longjohns, not the nightgown. This is stated in “Comparison of 1997 DNA to 2008 DNA Match” from Bode Labs.
There are three BODE reports from 2008. In the report dated March 24, 2008, Burke and Patsy can’t be excluded from the longjohns sample 2S07-101-05B. The snippet of report I included in this post is the report from May 12, 2008 and refers to the nightgown testing. In that testing, 4 areas of the nightgown were sampled. Burke and Patsy can’t be excluded from nightgown sample 2S07-101-07A, they can’t be included or excluded on sample 2S07-101-07B, they can’t be included or excluded on sample 2S07-101-07C, and Burke can’t be included or excluded on sample S207-101-07D.
Thanks so very much! I got out my magnifying glass and found all of the areas you included. One thing that stands out is how many times John changes his story. If you recall in the report taken from Officer French he states JonBenet was wearing her red turtle neck top, not the white sequin star sweater. But back to the nightgown and longjohns – neither Burke nor Patsy could be excluded or included from touching those either. Would Burke have touched her longjohns after she was redressed? Secondly, balling up the nightgown and leaving it at the scene since they had gone to the trouble of doing a wipe down and redressing, would serve what purpose? Was it just a hurried frantic act, or did they think the” Intruder” simply wanted to make a hasty retreat? Many many layers to this case! And last, why so much blood on the nightgown? It suggests torture and brutality. Thanks so much for this paradox of an article.
What do you all think leaving a bloody nightgown with incriminating DNA at the crime scene indicates
If you look at the items that had JonBenét’s blood on them and look at where those items were found, I believe you have strong evidence of a cover-up. There was blood found on her size 12 underwear, the silver sequin star shirt she was found in, on her barbie nightgown, and on the blanket she was wrapped in. Presumably, all of those items were upstairs in her room/or near on Christmas night. So, how and why did all of those items make it to the wine cellar along with JonBenét’s body? Only someone participating in a cover-up would want all of the bloody or incriminating evidence to be in one spot. Why? Because they are trying to divert all of our attention to the basement/wine cellar. Someone is trying to get everyone focused on that area of the house, while diverting everyone away from the original crime scene. We see the same type of staging outside of the wine cellar with the paInt tote, all nice and neat, broken brush, splinters and all – again driving investigators to that scene. Why is there a need on the part of perpetrator(s) to make sure “we” all think everything happened right there? An intruder would have no need to do this type of staging.
Hi Cottonstar – you are one of my heroes. I think it was you some time ago who posted all of that boy scout-twining stick info that was so interesting. I’ve often wondered if the original crime scene was JonBenet’s room since in the video taken of the house her room looked like a hurricane swept through. I also don’t think the maglite was used as a weapon. My next question to you was where do you think all of the blood came from – her head wound was internal bleeding and not noticed except at autopsy. Thank you.
Meanwhile we were promised new DNA testing last year, and as the third Boulder DA rides off into the sunset we are left with more thwarted intentions , unfulfilled expectations and undelivered communications. Thanks a load, Stan Garnett.
I think the blood possibly came from her nose.
I think I’m finally getting all of the scenarios in the proper sequence now. I imagine the actual “killing” was simple, but the motivation for it was complex, and took time to grow, fester and develop from envy to jealousy to vindictiveness to rage. The coverup was intricate, with emotion on one hand but also with business-like sense of purpose and calm on the other hand to get it done. Much at stake to protect and attempt to hold on to. Misguided priorities, when one’s values turn from faith and family to wealth and status.
Was the blood on the nightgown ever dated? Had it been freshly deposited?
What do you think about the urine stain in the basement? How would that factor in to any theories of the crime happening upstairs?
I don’t think it happened upstairs. It happened in the basement.
I think they are covering for someone – IMO it’s a family member, and I don’t think it’s Burke… I think it’s John Andrew. Nobody knows for a fact, even the police, that John Andrew was in Atlanta during the commission of the murder. What get’s me is how so many people, INCLUDING THE POLICE, bypass the suitcase in the basement, under the window, near the body, WITH A SEMEN STAINED DUVET AND A DR. SEUSS BOOK BOTH BELONGING TO JOHN ANDREW. The neighbor even claimed to see him! I think Patsy is innocent, she went along for self preservation. And Burke is innocent. He might even be a victim and a witness. It’s a third party male(s) IMO. The answers start with John, John Andrew and possibly Fleet White.
BPD determined a long time ago that JAR was not in Boulder when Jonbenet was killed. Leave him alone.