Take the IDI & RDI consistancy challenge !

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I'm sorry but I don't believe that is the case in this one. They seem to have the entire story memorized by heart. They use the same words almost verbadim when telling it on tv interviews.
They were allowed to view their earlier statements. There is no excuse for their inconsistancies. They may seem slight to you, but the slight "tweaking" they do is all for the benefit of making them look "innocent". IMO
I don't see how you can recite something so many times and still come up with inconsistancies.

Example of what I am trying to point out. You said John Ramsey said he brought her upstairs and put JBR in front of the Christmas tree. We know he didn't do that but Linda Arndt did that. He knows JBR's body was in front of the tree when Patsy came in - so that is what he remembers. How is that a lie or inconsistency or the memorization of a story? This is just one example of minor inconsistencies in their statements.

Then you say they use the same words - so if they use the same words can it not be that is how they speak? According to your post they're damned if they say the same thing AND damned if they get the details mixed up.

Damned if you and damned if ou don't :shrug:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Example of what I am trying to point out. You said John Ramsey said he brought her upstairs and put JBR in front of the Christmas tree. We know he didn't do that but Linda Arndt did that. He knows JBR's body was in front of the tree when Patsy came in - so that is what he remembers. How is that a lie or inconsistency or the memorization of a story? This is just one example of minor inconsistencies in their statements.

Then you say they use the same words - so if they use the same words can it not be that is how they speak? According to your post they're damned if they say the same thing AND damned if they get the details mixed up.

Damned if you and damned if ou don't :shrug:

I am not damning them for reciting the story in the same words; I am just wondering how they can "forget" or change certain details after reciting it so many times.
Who knows? Maybe for some reason JR thought it sounded better if he said he put her under the Christmas tree instead of on the floor. I just don't see how he could forget where he laid her after being interviewed by the police so many times and always saying he put her on the floor.
I don't think I would ever forget the details of my childs death. I would be going over everything in my mind constantly to try to figure out how this happened. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I am not damning them for reciting the story in the same words; I am just wondering how they can "forget" or change certain details after reciting it so many times.
Who knows? Maybe for some reason JR thought it sounded better if he said he put her under the Christmas tree instead of on the floor. I just don't see how he could forget where he laid her after being interviewed by the police so many times and always saying he put her on the floor.
I don't think I would ever forget the details of my childs death. I would be going over everything in my mind constantly to try to figure out how this happened. IMO

You would think maybe you would TWW but you haven't lost a child. Again - my brother was killed - my mother heard the shots and looked out of the window and can't remember anything except seeing my brother's body. EVERYTHING from the moment the shots rang out to my brother's burial is a total blur to my Mom. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena

<snip>

Damned if you and damned if ou don't :shrug:

I've been trying to figure out too - if they had "everything memorized by heart" why would there be "inconsistencies" in their stories. JMO

[LindaA]

I think the way a person answers a question has a lot to do with the way it is asked. Remember the police were in control of the questions and are masters at manipulating them in order to get info they want. How many false confessions have we heard about that were determined to have been coerced?

I also agree that our memory tends not to be as perfect as we think it would be in any stressful situation. It is a mistake to judege someone on the basis of what we think we would do or not do in s stressful situation.

Further, I agree that had the Ramseys been able to recite chapter and verse everything just the same without varying, those who believe them to be guilty would see something wrong it that. JMO

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1



I don't think IMO Isn't it great that we can take things out of context.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by LindaA
I think the way a person answers a question has a lot to do with the way it is asked. Remember the police were in control of the questions and are masters at manipulating them in order to get info they want. How many false confessions have we heard about that were determined to have been coerced?

I also agree that our memory tends not to be as perfect as we think it would be in any stressful situation. It is a mistake to judege someone on the basis of what we think we would do or not do in s stressful situation.

Further, I agree that had the Ramseys been able to recite chapter and verse everything just the same without varying, those who believe them to be guilty would see something wrong it that. JMO

See that is the thing that blows my mind. When your telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The landscape never changes. It is what it is. Nothing inconsistent about it. No need to read and review. To try to memorize a thousand answers. You just speak the truth ....

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


See that is the thing that blows my mind. When your telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The landscape never changes. It is what it is. Nothing inconsistent about it. No need to read and review. To try to memorize a thousand answers. You just speak the truth ....

If only it was that simple. JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


If only it was that simple. JMO

Oh it is!! And if it really ever does go to a murder trial. Life could depend on it. Whats that saying. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here is the hard cold truth you can say I don't remember. Understandable . But its contradictions that prove insurance fraud to murder every day in a court of law. What is it we swear by. Hand on the Holy Bible. To tell the truth......the whole truth ....and nothing but the truth....so help us GOD. Not well I think or contadict ourselves from prior testimony to try to please or make ourself look better or less guilty ....more innocent . The Truth .....no more.... no less ....nice neat tidy. If its a blur say its a blur. Say well here is what I remember about it. If your telling the truth and that is what you remember about it. Its the same the first testimoy as the last. See that is why people who believe the RDI. Believe they did it. Not because the human mind choses to believe the worst of the Ramseys. Its because of these very things people have doubts. Its human nature if you lie to me about one little small tiny thing. How can I trust anything?:shrug:

[Athena]

I haven't read any major discrepancies in the Ramseys' interviews and yet I keep hearing about them lying. Could someone elaborate on what lies they told?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena
I haven't read any major discrepancies in the Ramseys' interviews and yet I keep hearing about them lying. Could someone elaborate on what lies they told?

Certainly. 1997 interview, John says he didn't see any glass in the trainroom. 1998, he saw glass, picked it up and put it on the window ledge.
Patsy: 1997 interview remembers buying the oversized Bloomies for her neice. 1998, can't remember buying them at all.
John: says he took her coat off after carrying her upstairs. Her coat was in the car.
Both: how and where the ransom note was found and read by both; who touched it and when....stories changed frequently.
Patsy saying that her shower was broken was only mentioned in their book but never to the LE. Almost like making up a reason to explain why she didn't take a shower?
John only mentioning the broken/open window to LE well after the fact, not mentioning the suitcase until well later and then later saying in a tv interview that he told Det. Arndt right away; which he did not.
Claiming that they were never asked to take a polygraph test or asked to have her body exhumed.
There are more, but I can't think of them right now. I think we RDIs have brought them up many times in the past, though.
It doesn't matter that they are not MAJOR discrepencies. They simply tweaked their stories to fit the evidence or had convenient memory lapses. If you are telling the truth, your story stays the same. They seem to only have trouble with the details. They had their story all nice and neat and simple until the cops did what they were supposed to do; which is get the minor details...and that's where the Ramseys couldn't keep it straight.
I know you are just going to dismiss it as "they were grieving and confused" so I don't know why I bothered writing all of this.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Certainly. 1997 interview, John says he didn't see any glass in the trainroom. 1998, he saw glass, picked it up and put it on the window ledge.
Patsy: 1997 interview remembers buying the oversized Bloomies for her neice. 1998, can't remember buying them at all.
John: says he took her coat off after carrying her upstairs. Her coat was in the car.
Both: how and where the ransom note was found and read by both; who touched it and when....stories changed frequently.
Patsy saying that her shower was broken was only mentioned in their book but never to the LE. Almost like making up a reason to explain why she didn't take a shower?
John only mentioning the broken/open window to LE well after the fact, not mentioning the suitcase until well later and then later saying in a tv interview that he told Det. Arndt right away; which he did not.
Claiming that they were never asked to take a polygraph test or asked to have her body exhumed.
There are more, but I can't think of them right now. I think we RDIs have brought them up many times in the past, though.
It doesn't matter that they are not MAJOR discrepencies. They simply tweaked their stories to fit the evidence or had convenient memory lapses. If you are telling the truth, your story stays the same. They seem to only have trouble with the details. They had their story all nice and neat and simple until the cops did what they were supposed to do; which is get the minor details...and that's where the Ramseys couldn't keep it straight.
I know you are just going to dismiss it as "they were grieving and confused" so I don't know why I bothered writing all of this.

I agree with you...you just wasted some of your precious time....that you could have spent doing other things. Every single thing that you said, will be dismissed because the Ramsey's were "grief stricken and confused". I don't waste my time anymore. I just read the posts...and every once in a blue moon, I will respond to one. I am tired of all of the hashing and RE-hashing. It just seems like it goes on FOREVER. I look at it this way, I really think that there is no way that the RDI's will change the mind of the IDI's...and vice versa. Its a waste of time...unless there are some new developments in the case, which I doubt in our lifetime, we will ever see. IMO

[MaryD]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Oh it is!! And if it really ever does go to a murder trial. Life could depend on it. Whats that saying. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Here is the hard cold truth you can say I don't remember. Understandable . But its contradictions that prove insurance fraud to murder every day in a court of law. What is it we swear by. Hand on the Holy Bible. To tell the truth......the whole truth ....and nothing but the truth....so help us GOD. Not well I think or contadict ourselves from prior testimony to try to please or make ourself look better or less guilty ....more innocent . The Truth .....no more.... no less ....nice neat tidy. If its a blur say its a blur. Say well here is what I remember about it. If your telling the truth and that is what you remember about it. Its the same the first testimoy as the last. See that is why people who believe the RDI. Believe they did it. Not because the human mind choses to believe the worst of the Ramseys. Its because of these very things people have doubts. Its human nature if you lie to me about one little small tiny thing. How can I trust anything?:shrug:

Amen!!!

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena
I haven't read any major discrepancies in the Ramseys' interviews and yet I keep hearing about them lying. Could someone elaborate on what lies they told?

I noticed someone elaborated - but as usual with not one link.

JMO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I noticed someone elaborated - but as usual with not one link.

JMO

If it were a matter of one link or two fine. Please look up each interview and the book and each public interview on television or with a reporter cross compare them that should keep you busy for a while and also prove to you there were many inconsistencies. Which my point is only this. If you swear in deposition to tell the truth and that is all you tell. Then there should not be inconsitancies. I know you'll say what inconsistancies. I have neither the time or the patience to provide you with a ten year review of books magazine articles interviewes websites and transcript of interviews. If you do not see it provision of it would shortly be explained away and your next questions would be what inconsitancies. Lets let a court decide .....that is all that any reasonable person would request is it not. Its the very essence and basis the judicial system of our nation is premised upon. Good enough for me.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Lets let a court decide .....that is all that any reasonable person would request is it not. Its the very essence and basis the judicial system of our nation is premised upon. Good enough for me.
The judicial system you speak of did decide by a GJ. So it's settled.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill

The judicial system you speak of did decide by a GJ. So it's settled.

I think that they need an unbiased GJ. The same thing happened to OJ...except his was in the court.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by shill

The judicial system you speak of did decide by a GJ. So it's settled.

What is settled?

[Ames]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


What is settled?

Hi Sweet....Shill is refering to this quote by CK...

"Lets let a court decide .....that is all that any reasonable person would request is it not. Its the very essence and basis the judicial system of our nation is premised upon. Good enough for me. "

Shill says that the GJ has already decided....so its "settled".

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


If it were a matter of one link or two fine. Please look up each interview and the book and each public interview on television or with a reporter cross compare them that should keep you busy for a while and also prove to you there were many inconsistencies. Which my point is only this. If you swear in deposition to tell the truth and that is all you tell. Then there should not be inconsitancies. I know you'll say what inconsistancies. I have neither the time or the patience to provide you with a ten year review of books magazine articles interviewes websites and transcript of interviews. If you do not see it provision of it would shortly be explained away and your next questions would be what inconsitancies. Lets let a court decide .....that is all that any reasonable person would request is it not. Its the very essence and basis the judicial system of our nation is premised upon. Good enough for me.

Thank you for the advice, but I don't think you have all the answers - and I think it is my right - and other people's right to ask to see a link - which is a part of the rules here - IF anyone opts to post something as fact without IMO, JMO, or something to that effect.

I probably know about as much about this case as you do - except the local gossip perhaps - but if you are going to post on a message board I expect you will get questions especially if all you are posting is insinuations and innuendos.

JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


I noticed someone elaborated - but as usual with not one link.

JMO

I think you all know about acandyrose.com and I've told you that the things I said came from the interviews...or most of them. I gave links before to the Barbara Walters interview. You all claim that you've researched so much....well, how did you miss all of this if you've read the interviews with the LE and didn't you read the interview with BW? Give me a break with the link crap. This is stuff you should have read a long time ago. :rolleyes:

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


<snip>

Give me a break with the link crap.

<snip>




Link crap? Not my rules - the rules of CTV. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I will give you links as soon as I have time. If you read the search warrants, when she was carried upstairs, Det. Arndt noted a "string" hanging from one wrist. This is the wrist that was left tied. Autopsy photos show only one wrist tied. JR hedged back and forth over whether or not he untied one wrist; sometimes he says he did, sometimes he says he didn't.
I don't know why he said he put her under the Christmas tree and I did not say that it made him more or less of a suspect. I am only commenting that he cannot keep his memories or stories straight. Finding the link where he says he placed her there may take some time so have patience.

BTW - did you ever find this link?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Thank you for the advice, but I don't think you have all the answers - and I think it is my right - and other people's right to ask to see a link - which is a part of the rules here - IF anyone opts to post something as fact without IMO, JMO, or something to that effect.

I probably know about as much about this case as you do - except the local gossip perhaps - but if you are going to post on a message board I expect you will get questions especially if all you are posting is insinuations and innuendos.

JMO

Furthermore, I have copied and pasted the conflicting stories and posted them in here in the past. How do you miss these things? I took the time to look for the inconsistancies...you seem to just by-pass them or ignore them. I've provided many links in the past about the very same things that you are asking me to prove right now. None of it is my "opinion"....they are facts. I am not going to waste my time giving you the links again. You can read the interviews yourself (you know where to find them) and take your own time comparing them for inconsistancies, if you so choose. If not...well, I won't be surprised because you've already made your mind up that IDI and probably can't be bothered to really check something out that might cause you to have doubts. Nope, just pass it all off due to grief or confusion....grief and confusion that goes on for years and years and years. According to IDI theory, the Ramseys never came out of their grief and confusion and never will. Yep...so overcome with grief and confusion that even though they have every interview they ever gave available to study, they still can't keep their stories straight.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Furthermore, I have copied and pasted the conflicting stories and posted them in here in the past. How do you miss these things? I took the time to look for the inconsistancies...you seem to just by-pass them or ignore them. I've provided many links in the past about the very same things that you are asking me to prove right now. None of it is my "opinion"....they are facts. I am not going to waste my time giving you the links again. You can read the interviews yourself (you know where to find them) and take your own time comparing them for inconsistancies, if you so choose. If not...well, I won't be surprised because you've already made your mind up that IDI and probably can't be bothered to really check something out that might cause you to have doubts. Nope, just pass it all off due to grief or confusion....grief and confusion that goes on for years and years and years. According to IDI theory, the Ramseys never came out of their grief and confusion and never will. Yep...so overcome with grief and confusion that even though they have every interview they ever gave available to study, they still can't keep their stories straight.

Well, with this much familiarity with all of the "links" I would think it would be a snap to post them again. Especially, when posting something as fact and not just "your opinion."

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Well, with this much familiarity with all of the "links" I would think it would be a snap to post them again. Especially, when posting something as fact and not just "your opinion."

www.acandyrose.com

Everything you need for interviews and then some. Now act like you didn't know about this link. :rolleyes:

Have a read at this for denial over being asked to take a polygraph test and for the double talk about how they would have given seperate interviews in a heartbeat....watch them turn around and make excuses why they didn't.

http://www.crimelynx.com/katie321.html

I am still looking for the Christmas tree link.

[Athena]

Originally posted by LindaA
I think the way a person answers a question has a lot to do with the way it is asked. Remember the police were in control of the questions and are masters at manipulating them in order to get info they want. How many false confessions have we heard about that were determined to have been coerced?

I also agree that our memory tends not to be as perfect as we think it would be in any stressful situation. It is a mistake to judege someone on the basis of what we think we would do or not do in stressful situation.

Further, I agree that had the Ramseys been able to recite chapter and verse everything just the same without varying, those who believe them to be guilty would see something wrong it that. JMO

Great post Linda and I totally agree. You make an excellent point re: how and what questions are asked and the resultant answers. JMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


www.acandyrose.com

Everything you need for interviews and then some. Now act like you didn't know about this link. :rolleyes:

Have a read at this for denial over being asked to take a polygraph test and for the double talk about how they would have given seperate interviews in a heartbeat....watch them turn around and make excuses why they didn't.

http://www.crimelynx.com/katie321.html

I am still looking for the Christmas tree link.

They did take polygraph tests and passed and they were NOT asked to take a polygraph. They were the ones to offer to take a polygraph.

ST: Well, let me ask you this, and I know Pat Burke’s going to jump all over me. And I know, well, let me ask you his way. I’m not asking you to take one, but hypothetically, if you took a polygraph, how would you do?

PR: I’m telling you the truth. I would, I mean I don’t know how those things work, but if they tell the truth, I ‘m telling the truth. I’ve never ever given anybody a reason to think otherwise. I want to find out who did this, period.

ST: Does that mean, yes, you’d pass it?

PR: Yes, I would pass it. I’ll take ten of them, I don’t care, you know. Do whatever you want

. http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

ST: John, one of the things, as you know better than anybody, at some point, if you’re not involved in this, we’ve got to take you out of the bucket. And you’ve been in it for four months and you certainly know why you’re in that bucket is you’re in the house, and I don’t need to say anything more than that. But, and I ask this question of Patsy, and where it might come out if (inaudible), but I’ll ask it. And I’m not asking you to take one, but if you were to take a polygraph, how would you do?

JR: Well, what I’ve been told is that, and I felt tremendous guilt after we lost JonBenet, because hadn’t protected her, like I failed as a parent. And was told that that’s, with that kind of emotion you shouldn’t take a lie detector test because you did have that guilt feeling, and, but, so I don’t know about the test, but I did not kill my daughter if that’s what you want to ask me. She was the most precious thing to me in the world. So if the lie detector test is correct and it was done correct, I’d pass it 100%.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

22 A. I don't know what was being done
23 with it on the back end, but certainly a
24 polygraph examination.
25 Q. So you would eliminate based
94
1 solely on a polygraph?
2 A. No.
3 Q. All right. You would take it
4 into consideration?
5 MR. DIAMOND: You have to answer
6 audibly.
7 A. We would take our polygraph
8 examinations into consideration, yes, sir.
9 Q. (BY MR. WOOD) All of your
10 polygraph examinations were done by the FBI,
11 weren't they?
12 A. I believe so.
13 Q. You didn't have anybody on the
14 Boulder Police Department that was trained in
15 polygraph examinations, did you?
16 A. I don't know if anybody received
17 polygraph training but we did not have an
18 in-house polygrapher.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/09212001Depo-SteveThomas.htm

Finally, after changing their minds several times, Boulder police announced that they would take John and Patsy Ramsey up on their offer to take polygraph tests and agreed to the Ramseys' terms that the tests be conducted by an independent expert in Atlanta and have the results made public
Several days later, Richard Keifer, the chairman of the American Polygraph Association announced that the group was willing to provide a qualified examiner and expert to administer the test with the same kind of quality control used by the FBI. Keifer said a lie detector test conducted by his group would be fair to both sides. "If they agree to take the polygraph and have us administer it, we will administer it in an independent fashion and make the final decision of who the examiner will be," he said. "We'll give consideration to both sides."
The Ramsey's attorney agreed saying: "The Ramseys would do it if it would help move the investigation forward, not because they felt they had a responsibility to prove their innocence but if Beckner doesn't sign on, they're taking all the risk and receiving no benefit." He added that in his opinion, the Boulder police were insisting on using the FBI to give the agency a chance to grill the Ramseys. Keifer, who once headed the FBI polygraph unit, confirmed that the FBI interrogates people who flunk the test. "They get a lot of confessions," he said. On May 16, Boulder police officially rejected Keifer's offer.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/time_11.html

[LadyFisher]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Absolutely. They had access to all of their previous statements (which in itself is highly unusual) and still told inconsistent stories. Many times it seems the lack of recall is all too convenient, especially with Patsy.

She was an intelligent woman with a good memory. She can tell you exactly which costume JonBenet wore in which pageant and who it was made by, but she can't remember if JonBenet had a bath Christmas Day. She can tell you exactly what ornament came from where on each of the eight Christmas trees in her house for the Boulder Parade of Homes tour, but she doesn't remeber if JonBenet was wearing size 12 undies when she changed her into long johns.

I don't believe she can't remember the details of situations involving her daughter's murder but can remember everything else about that time - such as how shabby and rickety the taxi CNN sent to pick them up was.

She has access to her previous statements - why shouldn't she be able to remember what she said before? And I don't believe her grief over losing her child was so extremely all-consuming that she can't remember even things that happened before her child turned up missing or dead - she's damn lucky that this killer has never struck again and killed another little girl the same way while she suffers from convenient amnesia and offers nothing to police to help them other than inconsistent half-truths. Sometimes during a traumatic event in ones life....our minds/brains have this wonderful coping mechanism....something very insignificant as a shabby taxi can cause laughter, which maybe would seem inappropiate to someone just looking on, but to you it is a way of releasing oneself....what many would consider important to remember our minds just simply block out...it feels like you are in a fog, but if someone jars a memory then you think yes, that did happen.....I see nothing in any of the so-called inconsistencies of John or Patsy that prove in any way they murdered their daughter! Hope this post makes sense, I've had a long workday today! :)

[Athena]

Originally posted by LadyFisher
Sometimes during a traumatic event in ones life....our minds/brains have this wonderful coping mechanism....something very insignificant as a shabby taxi can cause laughter, which maybe would seem inappropiate to someone just looking on, but to you it is a way of releasing oneself....what many would consider important to remember our minds just simply block out...it feels like you are in a fog, but if someone jars a memory then you think yes, that did happen.....I see nothing in any of the so-called inconsistencies of John or Patsy that prove in any way they murdered their daughter! Hope this post makes sense, I've had a long workday today! :)

Exactly. I even notice a couple of "so-called inconsistencies" are things that in fact did happen but done by someone else. When you hear something often enough and keep in mind you are in a fog -- you begin to think it is possible that you did do what you say you did.

Here's an example of the glass where he says he did what Fleet White admitted doing with the glass and the suitcase. No different than he knew JBR was placed near the Christmas tree and assumed he placed her there when in fact Linda Arndt did.

And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said he’d go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and that’s really the only window that’s, would let in entrance into he basement. And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

10 So I went down to the basement. I went into this
11 room with Fleet. I explained to him that this
12 window had been cracked open and I closed it. That
13 the window was broken, but I think it was broken
14 by me once before. We got down on our hands and
15 knees looking for some glass just to see.
16 LOU SMIT: What did you find?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: I think we found a few fragments
18 of glass not enough to indicate that it was a
19 fresh break.
20 LOU SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: We might have put them on the
22 ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We
23 had only found one or two. We might have put them
24 up here on the ledge.
25 LOU SMIT: Could you have put them on the
0163
1 suitcase?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Ahhhh, it's possible but I
3 don't remember doing that.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Certainly. 1997 interview, John says he didn't see any glass in the trainroom. 1998, he saw glass, picked it up and put it on the window ledge.
Patsy: 1997 interview remembers buying the oversized Bloomies for her neice. 1998, can't remember buying them at all.
John: says he took her coat off after carrying her upstairs. Her coat was in the car.
Both: how and where the ransom note was found and read by both; who touched it and when....stories changed frequently.
Patsy saying that her shower was broken was only mentioned in their book but never to the LE. Almost like making up a reason to explain why she didn't take a shower?
John only mentioning the broken/open window to LE well after the fact, not mentioning the suitcase until well later and then later saying in a tv interview that he told Det. Arndt right away; which he did not.
Claiming that they were never asked to take a polygraph test or asked to have her body exhumed.
There are more, but I can't think of them right now. I think we RDIs have brought them up many times in the past, though.
It doesn't matter that they are not MAJOR discrepencies. They simply tweaked their stories to fit the evidence or had convenient memory lapses. If you are telling the truth, your story stays the same. They seem to only have trouble with the details. They had their story all nice and neat and simple until the cops did what they were supposed to do; which is get the minor details...and that's where the Ramseys couldn't keep it straight.
I know you are just going to dismiss it as "they were grieving and confused" so I don't know why I bothered writing all of this.
Nothng in the 1997 interview re: JBR’s underwear.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

The only major inconsistencies I see are the posts being made about what was said or not said:


Nothing in the 1998 interview about the big underwear

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
9 them?
10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
TT: and again as you (inaudible) on the 25th, kind of give us a, almost a play by play, minute by minute, what did you do when you got out of bed? Where was John at? That sort of thing. All the way through the morning to the afternoon. Let’s kind of take it, we’ll take it in little chunks.

PR: Okay. Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first and I got up just right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[MissOtisRegrets]

IMO JonBenet most likely wore the underwear to the Whites. It said "Wednesday" on the panties. Christmas was a Wednesday. She was, apparently, crazy about those underpants and wanted to keep them, even though they had been bought for another and were too large for her. They wouldn't have fallen down, because she was wearing slacks over them.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
IMO JonBenet most likely wore the underwear to the Whites. It said "Wednesday" on the panties. Christmas was a Wednesday. She was, apparently, crazy about those underpants and wanted to keep them, even though they had been bought for another and were too large for her. They wouldn't have fallen down, because she was wearing slacks over them.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO

But they WOULD have fallen down when her pants were changed for bed that night, don't you think? Mommy should have noticed a thing like that. IMO

Here is the link where John states that HE put her under the Christmas tree...and wow...look...it's from their own book.

http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-morning.htm

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena

Nothng in the 1997 interview re: JBR’s underwear.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

The only major inconsistencies I see are the posts being made about what was said or not said:


Nothing in the 1998 interview about the big underwear

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


1 Q. The underwear that she was
2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you
3 know where they come from as far as what
4 store?
5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.
6 Q. Who purchased those?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. Do you recall when you purchased
9 them?
10 A. It was, I think, November of '96.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm
TT: and again as you (inaudible) on the 25th, kind of give us a, almost a play by play, minute by minute, what did you do when you got out of bed? Where was John at? That sort of thing. All the way through the morning to the afternoon. Let’s kind of take it, we’ll take it in little chunks.

PR: Okay. Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first and I got up just right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Could be I got the interview date wrong. I will go check it out. I am not making crap up. I took notes.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Exactly. I even notice a couple of "so-called inconsistencies" are things that in fact did happen but done by someone else. When you hear something often enough and keep in mind you are in a fog -- you begin to think it is possible that you did do what you say you did.

Here's an example of the glass where he says he did what Fleet White admitted doing with the glass and the suitcase. No different than he knew JBR was placed near the Christmas tree and assumed he placed her there when in fact Linda Arndt did.

And Fleet and I, Fleet was standing there and said he’d go with me. And we went down to the basement, went into the train room, which is, you know, the train set is, and that’s really the only window that’s, would let in entrance into he basement. And actually I’d gone down there earlier that morning, into that room, and the window was broken, but I didn’t see any glass around, so I assumed it was broken last summer. I used that window to get into the house when (inaudible) I didn’t have a key. But the window was open, about an eighth of an inch, and just kind latched it. So I went back down with Fleet, we looked around for some glass again, still didn’t see any glass.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1997BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

10 So I went down to the basement. I went into this
11 room with Fleet. I explained to him that this
12 window had been cracked open and I closed it. That
13 the window was broken, but I think it was broken
14 by me once before. We got down on our hands and
15 knees looking for some glass just to see.
16 LOU SMIT: What did you find?
17 JOHN RAMSEY: I think we found a few fragments
18 of glass not enough to indicate that it was a
19 fresh break.
20 LOU SMIT: What did you do with those fragments?
21 JOHN RAMSEY: We might have put them on the
22 ledge, if I remember. It really wasn't much. We
23 had only found one or two. We might have put them
24 up here on the ledge.
25 LOU SMIT: Could you have put them on the
0163
1 suitcase?
2 JOHN RAMSEY: Ahhhh, it's possible but I
3 don't remember doing that.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/1998BPD-John-Interview-Complete.htm

Except that he specifically stated once not seeing any glass and then stating another time that they did find some. Doesn't matter who put what where. Either he saw glass or he didn't.

I can't find the Bloomies statements anywhere so I retract that until I do find it. Sorry, but I tend to post and read very late at night so not surprising if I screwed something up. My notes are a mess too.

Another thing that I find puzzling is why JR took Melatonin to get a good nights rest ("Make sure you are well rested") since he was going to fly the family to Charlevoix the next day. As I understand it, they had a pilot to fly the plane. Or was the pilot flying them to one place and JR flying them to another?
I'm not sure how Melatonin affects people but you'd think it would have made him kind of groggy in the morning and why would you want to chance being groggy if you're going to fly a plane? But really, I am unsure at this point IF he was even going to pilot the plane...so if someone has an answer for that, I'd appreciate it.

Finally, you guys are doing just what I thought you'd do by justifying their inconsistancies with their emotional state. You would think if they were writing a book, they would get their facts straight for it. IMO

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
IMO JonBenet most likely wore the underwear to the Whites. It said "Wednesday" on the panties. Christmas was a Wednesday. She was, apparently, crazy about those underpants and wanted to keep them, even though they had been bought for another and were too large for her. They wouldn't have fallen down, because she was wearing slacks over them.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO

Who said she was crazy about them? Patsy? This is interesting - JonBenet only ever wore one pair out of that package, and that was on the night she was murdered. All the other pairs were still in the package, and the pair on JonBenet was brand new and had never even been washed yet. Yeah, she was so crazy about them that she never wore them until the night she was killed - even though she supposedly had had them since Thanksgiving. Patsy is a liar, and she contradicts herself while talking about the underwear.

If JonBenet had been those hugely outsized underwear while she was at the White's, it would have been sagging and bunched up in her pants, and would not have been comfortable at all - not to mention someone surely would have noticed them bunched up under her pants or JonBenet trying to adjust them. The crotch hung all the way down to her knees, and her hips weren't broad enough to hold the undies up! They would have been all caught up in the crotch of her velvet pants and would have been a pain in the @ss all evening long. I seriously doubt JonBenet would have chosen to wear those undies, and I definitely think it would have been obvious through her pants that she was wearing the wrong size undies.

And not only that, but Patsy certainly would have noticed those underwear on JonBenet when she changed her in the long johns. The undies were so huge, there would be nothing to hold them on JonBenet, and they would have been pulled off with the pants. And if they hadn't, then Patsy would have noticed how big they were because they wouldn't actually be covering the area underwear are supposed to cover. They were that much too big.

On top of that, there's a theory that JonBenet was dressed in them because they were in a box in the basement, already wrapped and ready to be sent out. One of the things found in the basement was a box with partially-opened Christmas presents in it. That package of underwear that was meant for Jenny very well could have been in that box, and the person who redressed JonBenet knew it and grabbed those to dress JB in after they wiped her down. That would explain why they had never been washed yet and why only one pair was out of the package.

Think about this also - Patsy said that package of undies had been in JonBenet's undie drawer with her other undies. Why would the person who dressed her in them skip over pairs of undies that were lying loose to pull out a pair from a package that wasn't open yet?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Who said she was crazy about them? Patsy? This is interesting - JonBenet only ever wore one pair out of that package, and that was on the night she was murdered. All the other pairs were still in the package, and the pair on JonBenet was brand new and had never even been washed yet. Yeah, she was so crazy about them that she never wore them until the night she was killed - even though she supposedly had had them since Thanksgiving. Patsy is a liar, and she contradicts herself while talking about the underwear.

If JonBenet had been those hugely outsized underwear while she was at the White's, it would have been sagging and bunched up in her pants, and would not have been comfortable at all - not to mention someone surely would have noticed them bunched up under her pants or JonBenet trying to adjust them. The crotch hung all the way down to her knees, and her hips weren't broad enough to hold the undies up! They would have been all caught up in the crotch of her velvet pants and would have been a pain in the @ss all evening long. I seriously doubt JonBenet would have chosen to wear those undies, and I definitely think it would have been obvious through her pants that she was wearing the wrong size undies.

And not only that, but Patsy certainly would have noticed those underwear on JonBenet when she changed her in the long johns. The undies were so huge, there would be nothing to hold them on JonBenet, and they would have been pulled off with the pants. And if they hadn't, then Patsy would have noticed how big they were because they wouldn't actually be covering the area underwear are supposed to cover. They were that much too big.

On top of that, there's a theory that JonBenet was dressed in them because they were in a box in the basement, already wrapped and ready to be sent out. One of the things found in the basement was a box with partially-opened Christmas presents in it. That package of underwear that was meant for Jenny very well could have been in that box, and the person who redressed JonBenet knew it and grabbed those to dress JB in after they wiped her down. That would explain why they had never been washed yet and why only one pair was out of the package.

Think about this also - Patsy said that package of undies had been in JonBenet's undie drawer with her other undies. Why would the person who dressed her in them skip over pairs of undies that were lying loose to pull out a pair from a package that wasn't open yet?

Excellent points, NP.

[Ames]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
IMO JonBenet most likely wore the underwear to the Whites. It said "Wednesday" on the panties. Christmas was a Wednesday. She was, apparently, crazy about those underpants and wanted to keep them, even though they had been bought for another and were too large for her. They wouldn't have fallen down, because she was wearing slacks over them.

MOO

:seeya:

MissO

Oh my goodness....have you been over to the Forums of Justice site? Someone posted pictures of a model (not a real person)...the exact size, and measurements as JB was at the time of her death. The poster had used her own daughter to make the model after, because at the time, her daughter was the exact weight, height and measurement as JB was at the time of her death. ANYWAY....if JB had of worn size 12 undies...and her correct size was a 6....they would have came up to her arm pits. There is NO WAY those panties would have been comfortable enough for her to wear to a party. IMO those were NOT the panties that she wore to the party. One other thing is the way that JB wore her hair to bed....in one interview (YES...I will be happy to provide the link if needed)....Patsy said that JB wore her hair in a ponytail to bed. That's the way her hair was when her body was found....in ponytails. I would LOVE to know if the people at the party were interviewed (or if there are pictures...) about JB's hairstyle that evening. If she was wearing the two or three ponytails that she was found in, thats one thing...but, if her hair was down...then that means that the Ramsey's are lying about her being asleep when they brought her home...and that she slept through the night. Otherwise...her hair would have been down, and there would have been no ponytails. I just cannot imagine Patsy letting her wear her hair like that to a party...in two (or was it three) ponytails, with mismatched hairbands. IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Excellent points, NP.

Theory, speculation and conjecture. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Theory, speculation and conjecture. JMO

Maybe so but it made sense. How else are we going to figure this out (as if) unless we theorize and speculate based on facts, evidence and what makes sense? IMO

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Except that he specifically stated once not seeing any glass and then stating another time that they did find some. Doesn't matter who put what where. Either he saw glass or he didn't.

I can't find the Bloomies statements anywhere so I retract that until I do find it. Sorry, but I tend to post and read very late at night so not surprising if I screwed something up. My notes are a mess too.

Another thing that I find puzzling is why JR took Melatonin to get a good nights rest ("Make sure you are well rested") since he was going to fly the family to Charlevoix the next day. As I understand it, they had a pilot to fly the plane. Or was the pilot flying them to one place and JR flying them to another?
I'm not sure how Melatonin affects people but you'd think it would have made him kind of groggy in the morning and why would you want to chance being groggy if you're going to fly a plane? But really, I am unsure at this point IF he was even going to pilot the plane...so if someone has an answer for that, I'd appreciate it.

Finally, you guys are doing just what I thought you'd do by justifying their inconsistancies with their emotional state. You would think if they were writing a book, they would get their facts straight for it. IMO

Melatonin is a supplement not a drug. And as far as emotions go what emotions did I depict in my posts. You just can't accept the fact that there were no inconsistencies that made a hill of beans in their interviews. JMO

Melatonin is the all-natural nightcap. It's secreted by the pineal gland, a pea-size structure at the center of the brain, as our eyes register the fall of darkness.

"At night melatonin is produced to help our bodies regulate our sleep-wake cycles. The amount of it produced by our body seems to lessen as we get older. Scientists believe this may be why young people have less problem sleeping than older people.

"Studies suggest that... supplements can hasten sleep and ease jet lag, without the hazards or side effects of prescription sleeping pills."

It may have many other uses and has been reported to make people feel better, strengthen the immune system, and reduce free radicals in the body. Current research is underway to determine it's effect as an anti-oxidant, immno-modulator in cancer, delayed sleep-phase disorders, and jet lag. Tests are still under way so there is much to still be learned about it and its effects on the human body. Travelers and people suffering from mild sleep disorders.

http://www.melatonin.com/

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter



Think about this also - Patsy said that package of undies had been in JonBenet's undie drawer with her other undies. Why would the person who dressed her in them skip over pairs of undies that were lying loose to pull out a pair from a package that wasn't open yet? Probably because they didn't dress her in them, so there was no undies to skip over..

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Melatonin is a supplement not a drug. And as far as emotions go what emotions did I depict in my posts. You just can't accept the fact that there were no inconsistencies that made a hill of beans in their interviews. JMO

Melatonin is the all-natural nightcap. It's secreted by the pineal gland, a pea-size structure at the center of the brain, as our eyes register the fall of darkness.

"At night melatonin is produced to help our bodies regulate our sleep-wake cycles. The amount of it produced by our body seems to lessen as we get older. Scientists believe this may be why young people have less problem sleeping than older people.

"Studies suggest that... supplements can hasten sleep and ease jet lag, without the hazards or side effects of prescription sleeping pills."

It may have many other uses and has been reported to make people feel better, strengthen the immune system, and reduce free radicals in the body. Current research is underway to determine it's effect as an anti-oxidant, immno-modulator in cancer, delayed sleep-phase disorders, and jet lag. Tests are still under way so there is much to still be learned about it and its effects on the human body. Travelers and people suffering from mild sleep disorders.
http://www.melatonin.com/



Their inconsistancies may not mean anything to you but it does to me. I can't just brush them under the rug like you can.
I know about Melatonin. My husband takes it. It's strong enough of a sleep aid that you are not supposed to drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery or drive after taking it.
Now...do you have the answer about who was going to fly the plane that morning?

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Maybe so but it made sense. How else are we going to figure this out (as if) unless we theorize and speculate based on facts, evidence and what makes sense? IMO Obviously different things make sense to different people.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
Probably because they didn't dress her in them, so there was no undies to skip over..


HUH? Well, SOMEBODY dressed her in them...and Patsy said that the package was in JB panty drawer. OKAY, so the intruder also took the time needed to go back up to JB's bedroom, find the exact drawer with the panties in them, passed over the size 6 panties that were already in her drawer...and took the time to open up the new pack of size 12 undies...and then took them back down to the basement to re-dress JB in. Is THAT what you are saying??

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Ames



HUH? Well, SOMEBODY dressed her in them...and Patsy said that the package was in JB panty drawer. OKAY, so the intruder also took the time needed to go back up to JB's bedroom, find the exact drawer with the panties in them, passed over the size 6 panties that were already in her drawer...and took the time to open up the new pack of size 12 undies...and then took them back down to the basement to re-dress JB in. Is THAT what you are saying??

And don't forget...made sure he had the pair with the right day of the week on them....so I guess that means the intruder killed her before midnight on the 26th. :rolleyes:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
Obviously different things make sense to different people.

No arguement there.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1




Their inconsistancies may not mean anything to you but it does to me. I can't just brush them under the rug like you can.
I know about Melatonin. My husband takes it. It's strong enough of a sleep aid that you are not supposed to drink alcohol, operate heavy machinery or drive after taking it.
Now...do you have the answer about who was going to fly the plane that morning?

Yes his pilot, Archuleta p. 136 PMPT.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


And don't forget...made sure he had the pair with the right day of the week on them....so I guess that means the intruder killed her before midnight on the 26th. :rolleyes:


Yeah, thanks...I forgot that part. He also took the time to find the Wednesday ones. My guess is, one of the parents, dressed her in those to either make it look like she had worn them to the Christmas party, or to make it look like the intruder killed her on Christmas, before midnight. IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


On top of that, there's a theory that JonBenet was dressed in them because they were in a box in the basement, already wrapped and ready to be sent out. One of the things found in the basement was a box with partially-opened Christmas presents in it. That package of underwear that was meant for Jenny very well could have been in that box, and the person who redressed JonBenet knew it and grabbed those to dress JB in after they wiped her down. That would explain why they had never been washed yet and why only one pair was out of the package.




Why do you say JB was dressed in those pants after she was wiped down, np? The pants were urine stained. Her body was cleaned, but she wasn't changed.

[Ames]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets



Why do you say JB was dressed in those pants after she was wiped down, np? The pants were urine stained. Her body was cleaned, but she wasn't changed.


I thought that the panties were not urine stained....but the pants were...indicating that the panties had been changed...but, not the pants. When you say "pants" ....do you mean panties??

[shill]

Wasn't JB old enough to wipe her self down and change her own panties and go back to bed?

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames



HUH? Well, SOMEBODY dressed her in them...and Patsy said that the package was in JB panty drawer. OKAY, so the intruder also took the time needed to go back up to JB's bedroom, find the exact drawer with the panties in them, passed over the size 6 panties that were already in her drawer...and took the time to open up the new pack of size 12 undies...and then took them back down to the basement to re-dress JB in. Is THAT what you are saying?? I was saying she was wearing them already.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
Wasn't JB old enough to wipe her self down and change her own panties and go back to bed?

Maybe but that doesn't explain why she was still wearing the same "pajama" pants when she was found that she had been wearing when her parents put her to bed.
Was she supposed to change her own sheets too?
This is all IF, of course, she did wet the bed that night.

I doubt she was wearing those underwear all day. Surely Patsy would have noticed how huge they were when she changed her pants that night. They would have came off with the pants she was already wearing, don't you think?

[shill]

I'd like to know what happened to the alleged panties she was wearing before she was allegedly changed into the size 12s.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
I'd like to know what happened to the alleged panties she was wearing before she was allegedly changed into the size 12s.

That is something I think IDI RDI FS or whatever would like to know. John Mark Karr says he has them in a secure and secret hiding place only he knows. If you want to buy that.

[lucky13]

Originally posted by shill
I'd like to know what happened to the alleged panties she was wearing before she was allegedly changed into the size 12s.
Those panties are in the same place as the missing piece of paintbrush & the 'rag' that was used to wipe down JB.;)

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Well, with this much familiarity with all of the "links" I would think it would be a snap to post them again. Especially, when posting something as fact and not just "your opinion."

You know what, Charlotte? You post stuff that's your opinion as if it's fact all the time - things like saying there is no fiber evidence and that was all a lie designed to trap the Rs.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that the fiber evidence is nothing but lies. You'd think it would be a snap for you to provide the links that prove you're right and CBI and BPD and Levin were all lying to trap the Ramseys into confession. As often as you say it, there must be proof, right?

It's not a proven fact that JonBenet wasn't sexually abused prior to her murder, either, but you say she wasn't abused quite frequently, and I don't see the links that prove your *opinion.*

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Ames



I thought that the panties were not urine stained....but the pants were...indicating that the panties had been changed...but, not the pants. When you say "pants" ....do you mean panties??

Both her underwear and her long johns were urine-stained. From the autopsy:

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/autopsy.html

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You know what, Charlotte? You post stuff that's your opinion as if it's fact all the time - things like saying there is no fiber evidence and that was all a lie designed to trap the Rs.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that the fiber evidence is nothing but lies. You'd think it would be a snap for you to provide the links that prove you're right and CBI and BPD and Levin were all lying to trap the Ramseys into confession. As often as you say it, there must be proof, right?

It's not a proven fact that JonBenet wasn't sexually abused prior to her murder, either, but you say she wasn't abused quite frequently, and I don't see the links that prove your *opinion.*

Good morning.

As long as I state that it is my opinion, I don't have to provide links.

About the only time you'll see me not say "my opinion" is when I respond to someone who has stated something without a link or without stating what they said is their opinion.

The whole point of posting links or "opinion" is so we can tell fact from fiction, isn't it?

JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by shill
Wasn't JB old enough to wipe her self down and change her own panties and go back to bed?

Apparently JonBenet was in the habit of asking any available adult to wipe her, so I wonder how adept she was at cleaning herself up.

Why would JonBenet wake up wet, go to her panty drawer, open an unopened package of undies in a size much too large for her when her own size undies were sitting right there folded up and not in an unopened package?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by shill
I was saying she was wearing them already.

Surely Patsy would have noticed that when she changed JonBenet into the long johns. Those huge size 12s would have been pulled off with the velvet pants, and if not, they would have been gaping open right where they were supposed to cover. Patsy didn't notice any of that in her interview. She said JonBenet was indeed wearing underwear, and did not notice that the underwear was way too big for her. She absolutely would have noticed if JB had had on the size 12s, they were so oversized for a child her age that would have been no way not to notice she was wearing them.

So if Patsy didn't notice, I'm thinking JonBenet did not have them on. They'd be so giant on her I can't see her ever wanting to wear them. They'd be really uncorfortable with the way they'd hang off her and bunch up under her pants.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by shill
I'd like to know what happened to the alleged panties she was wearing before she was allegedly changed into the size 12s.

Everybody I've encountered asks that same question and we'd all like the answer for it. I think they disappeared because they had some kind of evidence on them, evidence that resulted in the wiping down and redressing of JonBenet.

I'm pretty darn certain JMK does not have this missing pair of undies. No one has ever been able to prove he was ever in Boulder, let alone in the Ramsey house.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter

<snip>

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that the fiber evidence is nothing but lies. You'd think it would be a snap for you to provide the links that prove you're right and CBI and BPD and Levin were all lying to trap the Ramseys into confession. As often as you say it, there must be proof, right?

<snip>



Up on the links thread I posted links to two LKL transcripts where Lin Wood goes on national tv and talks about the fact that there was no black fiber evidence. No one to my knowledge has contradicted his claims.

JMO and all that.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets



Why do you say JB was dressed in those pants after she was wiped down, np? The pants were urine stained. Her body was cleaned, but she wasn't changed.

Those undies were brand new and unwashed, taken right out of a package that had to be opened by the person who dressed her in them.

I don't believe JonBenet herself would have chosen to dress in those undies. They were way too big to be comfortable at all, and she had an identical set of undies in her size that was purchased for her at the same time as the package of size 12/14s.

I don't think the person who wiped down and redressed her and then strangled her realized that the body releases whatever is in the bladder at the time of death (or else that person already thought JB was dead.)

Once she'd been strangled and the urine ran out onto the fresh set of clothes, it was too late or too much to clean her and change her again. The urine staining the long johns and undies in the crotch and in the front indicates that she was strangled facedown. Perhaps the strangler didn't even realize any urine came out.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Up on the links thread I posted links to two LKL transcripts where Lin Wood goes on national tv and talks about the fact that there was no black fiber evidence. No one to my knowledge has contradicted his claims.

JMO and all that.

I place zero stock in anything Lin Wood has to say, and I'm not the only one. I'll have to check and see if anyone has refuted his claims.

Meyer talked about taking fibers off JonBenet's pubic area in the autopsy, and that doesn't address the fiber evidence from Patsy's clothing.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Good morning.

As long as I state that it is my opinion, I don't have to provide links.

About the only time you'll see me not say "my opinion" is when I respond to someone who has stated something without a link or without stating what they said is their opinion.

The whole point of posting links or "opinion" is so we can tell fact from fiction, isn't it?

JMO

Ok let me get this straight so I am not in so much trouble in the future if I provide a link its fact, regardless if that fact is fiction. But if I say JMO its fiction even if its established fact. Ok just so I understand the rules. Opinion is fiction link is fact. Now I am only trying to learn to post properly. Bear with me if you give us a link its fact if its your opinion or anyone elses its a work of fiction? I need to go ponder this. :shrug:

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Ok let me get this straight so I am not in so much trouble in the future if I provide a link its fact, regardless if that fact is fiction. But if I say JMO its fiction even if its established fact. Ok just so I understand the rules. Opinion is fiction link is fact. Now I am only trying to learn to post properly. Bear with me if you give us a link its fact if its your opinion or anyone elses its a work of fiction? I need to go ponder this. :shrug:

Why don't you just go read the rules of posting? Don't want you to overtax anything this morning. JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Ames



I thought that the panties were not urine stained....but the pants were...indicating that the panties had been changed...but, not the pants. When you say "pants" ....do you mean panties??

This is from the autopsy report, Ames. In the last sentence, underwear (as opposed to long underwear) must refer to her panties, as that was where the red stains (blood mixed with possible saliva) were found.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/ramsey.case/final.autopsy.html

The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over
the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath
the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the
words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine
stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas
of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Surely Patsy would have noticed that when she changed JonBenet into the long johns. Those huge size 12s would have been pulled off with the velvet pants, and if not, they would have been gaping open right where they were supposed to cover. Patsy didn't notice any of that in her interview. She said JonBenet was indeed wearing underwear, and did not notice that the underwear was way too big for her. She absolutely would have noticed if JB had had on the size 12s, they were so oversized for a child her age that would have been no way not to notice she was wearing them.

So if Patsy didn't notice, I'm thinking JonBenet did not have them on. They'd be so giant on her I can't see her ever wanting to wear them. They'd be really uncorfortable with the way they'd hang off her and bunch up under her pants.

I imagine Patsy was half-asleep and on "automatic", when she changed JonBenet into the long johns. She didn't know to notice. She just went through the motions.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Those undies were brand new and unwashed, taken right out of a package that had to be opened by the person who dressed her in them.

I don't believe JonBenet herself would have chosen to dress in those undies. They were way too big to be comfortable at all, and she had an identical set of undies in her size that was purchased for her at the same time as the package of size 12/14s.

I don't think the person who wiped down and redressed her and then strangled her realized that the body releases whatever is in the bladder at the time of death (or else that person already thought JB was dead.)

Once she'd been strangled and the urine ran out onto the fresh set of clothes, it was too late or too much to clean her and change her again. The urine staining the long johns and undies in the crotch and in the front indicates that she was strangled facedown. Perhaps the strangler didn't even realize any urine came out.

But, the person had to clean her again after she urinated. She had no urine or blood spots that corresponded to those in the panties.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


But, the person had to clean her again after she urinated. She had no urine or blood spots that corresponded to those in the panties.

Hmmmm.....I've heard the blood spots on the undies didn't match up with where the blood would have come out of her (which could be accounted for by how overlarge the undies were - they had to be gathered up in the crotch), but...are you saying the urine stain on the undies didn't match up with the urine stain on the long johns?

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter




<snip>

It's not a proven fact that JonBenet wasn't sexually abused prior to her murder, either, but you say she wasn't abused quite frequently, and I don't see the links that prove your *opinion.*

Page 234, "Perfect Murder/Perfect Town" (HB Edition) -

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBent, whether pre- or - postmortem, did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators' gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene, intended to mislead the police."

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Page 234, "Perfect Murder/Perfect Town" (HB Edition) -

"The FBI believed that JonBenet's vaginal trauma was not consistent with a history of sexual abuse, and they had turned up no evidence of any other type of abuse. The sexual violation of JonBent, whether pre- or - postmortem, did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators' gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene, intended to mislead the police."

SweetCharlotte. To me there is no such thing as minor genital trauma on a precious 6 year olds body. One where there was erosion and evidence of abuse consistent with digital penetration. I could care less for an opinion on the perpetrator's gratification. The rebuttals to that authors opinon by medical opinion was posted. Of course each one of us has to make our own decision based on fact what we believe regarding the evidence. I have concerns but that of course is my opinion. I respect your decision to not put much faith in alternative opinion.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
I'd like to know what happened to the alleged panties she was wearing before she was allegedly changed into the size 12s.

I suppose it's totally out of the realm of possibility that the original underwear could have been washed, dried and put away that night. I guess that is too simple of an explanation about the mystery of the disapearing panties.

[Athena]

This is what I would ask people to do.

Please draw a crescent shape of a hymen. (too bad we cannot upload drawings here). Note that a hymen IS A RIM OF TISSUE. RIM of TISSUE when describing the hymen does not mean the hymen was eroded or missing. The injury occurred at the 7:00 position of the hymen. Please do this -- the erosion that is being referred to is the wall of the vagina with chronic inflammatation -- not the hymen. I believe I posted all of this a few pages back but I guess some did not read it. There would have been NO injury to the hymen if it DID NOT exist. :shrug: JMO

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Up on the links thread I posted links to two LKL transcripts where Lin Wood goes on national tv and talks about the fact that there was no black fiber evidence. No one to my knowledge has contradicted his claims.

JMO and all that.

If the R's defense lawyer said it, it must be true.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


If the R's defense lawyer said it, it must be true.

Do you have anything to disprove what the R's lawyer said?

[WallyCleaver]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Do you have anything to disprove what the R's lawyer said?

No. That however doesn't make his statement true.

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


No. That however doesn't make his statement true.

PM/PT - page 514

"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped."

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


You know what, Charlotte? You post stuff that's your opinion as if it's fact all the time - things like saying there is no fiber evidence and that was all a lie designed to trap the Rs.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof that the fiber evidence is nothing but lies. You'd think it would be a snap for you to provide the links that prove you're right and CBI and BPD and Levin were all lying to trap the Ramseys into confession. As often as you say it, there must be proof, right?

It's not a proven fact that JonBenet wasn't sexually abused prior to her murder, either, but you say she wasn't abused quite frequently, and I don't see the links that prove your *opinion.* It's hearsay whether it's a lie or not. The detectives's statement about the fibers is not admissible in court.
Don't you think if it wasn't a lie, John would have been put on trial. IMO that kind of fiber evidence is a smoking gun.

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Apparently JonBenet was in the habit of asking any available adult to wipe her, so I wonder how adept she was at cleaning herself up.

Why would JonBenet wake up wet, go to her panty drawer, open an unopened package of undies in a size much too large for her when her own size undies were sitting right there folded up and not in an unopened package? Because she's a kid.

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Surely Patsy would have noticed that when she changed JonBenet into the long johns. Those huge size 12s would have been pulled off with the velvet pants, and if not, they would have been gaping open right where they were supposed to cover. Patsy didn't notice any of that in her interview. She said JonBenet was indeed wearing underwear, and did not notice that the underwear was way too big for her. She absolutely would have noticed if JB had had on the size 12s, they were so oversized for a child her age that would have been no way not to notice she was wearing them.

So if Patsy didn't notice, I'm thinking JonBenet did not have them on. They'd be so giant on her I can't see her ever wanting to wear them. They'd be really uncorfortable with the way they'd hang off her and bunch up under her pants. Seems like a few think it was a given that JB would wet the bed if someone didn't wake her to pee. No one woke her.
So if she pees herself, I'm betting she would wake up.
She might find her parents sound asleep unable to assist or decide to not bother them at all. She takes it upon herself to wipe herself off using toilet paper. She gets herself a clean pair of undies, but she's just a kid and wants to wear the ones she likes, so she does, regardless of the size. Before she goes back to bed she is hungry and goes down to the kitchen for some pineapple.

[shill]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Those undies were brand new and unwashed, taken right out of a package that had to be opened by the person who dressed her in them.

I don't believe JonBenet herself would have chosen to dress in those undies. They were way too big to be comfortable at all, and she had an identical set of undies in her size that was purchased for her at the same time as the package of size 12/14s.

I don't think the person who wiped down and redressed her and then strangled her realized that the body releases whatever is in the bladder at the time of death (or else that person already thought JB was dead.)

Once she'd been strangled and the urine ran out onto the fresh set of clothes, it was too late or too much to clean her and change her again. The urine staining the long johns and undies in the crotch and in the front indicates that she was strangled facedown. Perhaps the strangler didn't even realize any urine came out. So why did the killer redress her in those oversized undies if no one else would have done that because of there size?

Why would the killer redress her with undies at all? She had long johns and pants and he keeps the underwear for souvenir.

[shill]

Originally posted by WallyCleaver


No. That however doesn't make his statement true. I wish I may, I wish I might, I wish upon this star tonight.
Keep wishing Wally.

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I suppose it's totally out of the realm of possibility that the original underwear could have been washed, dried and put away that night. I guess that is too simple of an explanation about the mystery of the disapearing panties. That's a good explanation that goes with the whole sheet washing cover up of her wetting the bed thing.

But IMO, there is no missing underwear.

[shill]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


PM/PT - page 514

"The police reported that they had been unable to find a match for the fibers discovered on JonBenet's labia and on her inner thighs. The fibers did not match any clothes belonging to John or Patsy. The police were stumped." Gee Wally! Looks like the Beave got you in trouble again.

[bullmoose]

I remain astounded at the almost supernational qualities of the fibers found in the genital area of Jonbenet. As has been stated and shown, in PM-PT page 514, for example: there is, was and will be no match to any clothes belonging to her parents. End of story? Nope, it seems like every time I turn my computer I hear about how the FIBERS are proof of something, that the fibers from John's Israeli shirt matched the ones found on Jonbenet or how the fact John's lawyer did his job and stopped a fishing expedition with the reasonable demand to see if there was a factual basis for the line of questioning actually proved guilt. Here is my new theory: Jonbenet was murdered by a vampire, so the unidentified fibers are undead fibers from the vampires cape. This explanation, at least gives me peace of mind why the fiber evidence has a life of its own:lol:

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by bullmoose

<snip>

Here is my new theory: Jonbenet was murdered by a vampire, so the unidentified fibers are undead fibers from the vampires cape. This explanation, at least gives me peace of mind why the fiber evidence has a life of its own:lol:

Oh, no - can't be. That would be an IDI which of course would be ridiculous and not interesting to discuss. :D

JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Hmmmm.....I've heard the blood spots on the undies didn't match up with where the blood would have come out of her (which could be accounted for by how overlarge the undies were - they had to be gathered up in the crotch), but...are you saying the urine stain on the undies didn't match up with the urine stain on the long johns?

No, I'm saying her body was clean but there were urine and blood stains in her panties. IMO she was cleaned purely for the convenience and pleasure of her abuser. Post-abuse, her dirty panties were pulled back up.

MOO

[Devotion]

Originally posted by shill
So why did the killer redress her in those oversized undies if no one else would have done that because of there size?

Why would the killer redress her with undies at all? She had long johns and pants and he keeps the underwear for souvenir.
:shrug: imo; Why would a Killer open a new pack of panties, when other clean panties were in the drawer?

[Devotion]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I suppose it's totally out of the realm of possibility that the original underwear could have been washed, dried and put away that night. I guess that is too simple of an explanation about the mystery of the disapearing panties.
:shrug: imo: Could the panties have been flushed down the commode? Size 6 is very small.......jmo

[LindaA]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: imo: Could the panties have been flushed down the commode? Size 6 is very small.......jmo

Possibly, but the police dismantled all the toilets and searched.

[shill]

Originally posted by Devotion

:shrug: imo; Why would a Killer open a new pack of panties, when other clean panties were in the drawer? It seems the only one that was interested in JB wearing those panties, was JB.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
That's a good explanation that goes with the whole sheet washing cover up of her wetting the bed thing.

But IMO, there is no missing underwear.

So you think that she walked around all day wearing saggy baggy underwear? I suppose it's possible but seems unlikely. You'd think Patsy would have helped her dress to go to the Whites party and would have noticed. We know she was involved somewhat in dressing JB that evening because Patsy said as how JB didn't want to wear the sweater that matched Patsys.

[thewhitewitch1]

Re: Shill and why bother with putting underwear back on her:

IMO: because a mother and father would not want to leave their daughter to be discovered wearing no underwear.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by shill
It seems the only one that was interested in JB wearing those panties, was JB.

Having many years ago been a headstrong little girl of six, I can project back and tell you that, if I had wanted to wear those panties with the day of the week on them and I was told I couldn't at this point, because they were too big, that as soon as my mother's back was turned, I would have put them on, anyway, because no one would be the wiser. And that once I had put them on, if I found that they were, in fact, too big, I would have worn them anyway, rather than admit I was wrong.

That's what headstrong little six year old girls are like. I know. :cool:

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
Re: Shill and why bother with putting underwear back on her:

IMO: because a mother and father would not want to leave their daughter to be discovered wearing no underwear.

My thoughts exactly...they wanted to preserve what little dignity she had left...IMO

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Having many years ago been a headstrong little girl of six, I can project back and tell you that, if I had wanted to wear those panties with the day of the week on them and I was told I couldn't at this point, because they were too big, that as soon as my mother's back was turned, I would have put them on, anyway, because no one would be the wiser. And that once I had put them on, if I found that they were, in fact, too big, I would have worn them anyway, rather than admit I was wrong.

That's what headstrong little six year old girls are like. I know. :cool:

She had an identical pair in her size.

Patsy bought two packages of Bloomie's underwear on a trip to NYC around Thanksgiving time. One package was size 4/6, meant for JonBenet, and the other was size 12/14, meant for Jenny. The underwear in both packages looked the same only in different sizes, with seven pairs of underwear with the days of the week written on them.

Your mother would have noticed you were wearing extremely large underwear when she undressed you for bed. They would have been pulled off when she pulled your pants off, and she would have had to pull them back up again.

[Athena]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Having many years ago been a headstrong little girl of six, I can project back and tell you that, if I had wanted to wear those panties with the day of the week on them and I was told I couldn't at this point, because they were too big, that as soon as my mother's back was turned, I would have put them on, anyway, because no one would be the wiser. And that once I had put them on, if I found that they were, in fact, too big, I would have worn them anyway, rather than admit I was wrong.

That's what headstrong little six year old girls are like. I know. :cool:

What bothers me about this underwear business is where is this size 12 v 4/5 coming from? 4/5 size underwear are worn by pre-school children. I have seen those pictures on another forum and they are misleading and deceiving. IMO a six-year old of average weight and height would probably wear at least an 8. Then I found this in the transcripts and below that I've copied a chart from the JC Penney site for children's underwear:

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Size Chart / JCPENNEY.COM/KIDS

GIRLS
Girls 7-18 Regular (Average frame and proportions)

Size S(7) S(8) M(10) M(12)
Height 50-51 52-53 54-55 56-58
Bust 25-26 26-27 28-29 29-30
Waist 22-23 23-23 24-24 25-25
Hips 27-28 28-29 29-30 31-32

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
It's hearsay whether it's a lie or not. The detectives's statement about the fibers is not admissible in court.
Don't you think if it wasn't a lie, John would have been put on trial. IMO that kind of fiber evidence is a smoking gun.

Would it not be interesting however if they produce the shirt and the fibers in court. Along with analysis. See who is right or wrong. See that is all I ask. Put it in a courtroom. Not just hashed out on forums.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


Why don't you just go read the rules of posting? Don't want you to overtax anything this morning. JMO

Rude so very very rude and totally unecessary. Please ignore me. I plan to ignore you.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Because she's a kid.

Shill honestly at this juncture I doubt highly JonBenet was capable of cleaning herself whether it was something she normally did or not.

[Zoey]

Originally posted by Athena


What bothers me about this underwear business is where is this size 12 v 4/5 coming from? 4/5 size underwear are worn by pre-school children. I have seen those pictures on another forum and they are misleading and deceiving. IMO a six-year old of average weight and height would probably wear at least an 8. Then I found this in the transcripts and below that I've copied a chart from the JC Penney site for children's underwear:

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Size Chart / JCPENNEY.COM/KIDS

GIRLS
Girls 7-18 Regular (Average frame and proportions)

Size S(7) S(8) M(10) M(12)
Height 50-51 52-53 54-55 56-58
Bust 25-26 26-27 28-29 29-30
Waist 22-23 23-23 24-24 25-25
Hips 27-28 28-29 29-30 31-32




I never have understood why it is always posted that she wore a size 4/5. A size 4/5 would fit a 3-4 year old, not a normal, average sized 6 year old. I would think JB would wear a 8/10, which means a size 12 would not be so unbelievable large on her like everyone seems to think. A little baggy, but not like she was wearing her mother's underwear. I would think it would be stranger to find her in a size 4/5. Now that would cause chafing and irritation more than one size too big.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


What bothers me about this underwear business is where is this size 12 v 4/5 coming from? 4/5 size underwear are worn by pre-school children. I have seen those pictures on another forum and they are misleading and deceiving. IMO a six-year old of average weight and height would probably wear at least an 8. Then I found this in the transcripts and below that I've copied a chart from the JC Penney site for children's underwear:

23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

Size Chart / JCPENNEY.COM/KIDS

GIRLS
Girls 7-18 Regular (Average frame and proportions)

Size S(7) S(8) M(10) M(12)
Height 50-51 52-53 54-55 56-58
Bust 25-26 26-27 28-29 29-30
Waist 22-23 23-23 24-24 25-25
Hips 27-28 28-29 29-30 31-32

Obviously the underwear were much too large for her or such a big deal wouldn't have been made out of it.
At this point, Patsy knew that the underwear were in question so why wouldn't she say JB wore a larger size?

2001 interview/Patsy:

11 Q. And I will just state a fact

12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties

13 taken out of, by the police, out of

14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is

15 that where she kept -

16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

17 Q. -- where you were describing that

18 they were just put in that drawer?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

25 A. I would say more like six to

0094

1 eight. There were probably some in there

2 that were too small.

3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?

4 A. Not typically, no.

5 MR. KANE: Okay.

So....you, Athena, have her saying size 8-10, here she says size 6-8, yet out of 15 pairs of her underwear taken in by the LE, all 15 pair are size 4 or 6. The neice they were originally purchased for was 12 or 13 years old and was described as being a "big girl". The underwear had to be huge on JB.
I'm sure underwear sizes run differently from store to store too, so comparing JC Penney sizes with Bloomingdales isn't proof of anything. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Too late to edit. That should have read 2000 interview. Same interview you quoted from, Athena. Notice Patsy can't even be consistant about what size underwear her kid wore, even in the same interview.

[Zoey]

TWW: maybe I am looking at a different set of search warrants than you, but I see 19 pair of girls/childs underwear taken into evidence and not one of them mentions a size. Where did you find search warrants that have the size?

[aussiesheila]

OK WallyCleaver, you asked for it - a consistent rational theory of IDI - this is my IDI theory.

My theory is that some pedophiles who knew the Ramsey family, organised a session in which they intended to sexually abuse JonBenet in the basement of her own home without the knowledge of either parent, but they had no intention whatsoever of killing her. I think that, tragically as it turned out, they allowed someone whose background they knew nothing about, to join their group that night. I think this person was in fact a violent psychopath, and it was his actions that night that lead to her death.


Prior to the murder:

I think JonBenet had been sexually abused for at least three years prior to her death, initally by her maternal grandfather and later also by her father's best friend. I think the abuse took place mainly when her father was away on business trips, but probably also at party gatherings when there were large crowds gathered in one house.

When the Ramsey family moved to Boulder I think that one of these individuals arranged for a pediatrician acquaintance of his to take JonBenet on as one of his patients. I think this pediatrician was prepared to turn a blind eye to signs of sexual abuse in JonBenet and to reassure Patsy that JonBenet's incontinence, recurrent vaginal/urinary tract infections and vague abdominal problems were all perfectly normal, thus allowing the abuse to continue without interference from the mother. I think Patsy had been sexually abused by her father as a child and suspected JonBenet was being abused also but was content for the sake of expediency, I suspect, to accept DrB's reassurances to the contrary. I also think that John had not one tiny inkling of the ugly reality of what was occurring within his very own family.


The plan for Christmas night

As within all subcultures, word gets around and at some point I think that the Santa who attended the '94 and '95 Christmas parties at the Ramseys' house realized what was going on with JonBenet, and became obsessed with the idea of having a sexual experience of his own with her. I think it was around the time of the '96 Ramsey Christmas party that he devised a plan for making his dream come true.
I think he decided Christmas night would be the night, so at the party on the 23rd he told JonBenet that he would be making a special visit to her Christmas night and that it was a secret, (naturally). I think at that party he invited CG, relative of John's best friend who was visiting from California, to join him. I think GM, the boarder from across the road, who essentially gate-crashed the party, was invited then to join in also.

Santa knew a journalism student from his University teaching days whom he thought might also be interested in the planned event, he decided he would arrange for his former student to drive up to his home in the mountains and collect him and they could go to the Ramseys' that night together.
I think that Santa persuaded Patsy to allow him to visit JonBenet on Christmas night on the pretext that his friend Charles Kuralt, the well-known photographer, who apparently was going to come to party on the 23rd, but was unable to do so at the last minute, was most anxious to photograph JonBenet with Santa for a special Christmas feature in some up-market glossy magazine which would be wonderful publicity for JonBenet. I think Santa would have convinced Patsy not to tell John about the planned visit because he would be sure to disapprove. I think he promised her it would only take about an hour and JonBenet could catch up on her sleep on the flight to Charlevoix the next day, an idea which I think might be very appealing to a tired mother of an active six year old. I think he arranged with Patsy that once John was asleep she was to come downstairs and turn on the kitchen light as a signal for him to come to the kitchen door and for her to let him in.


Possible scenario on the 25th / 26th

In the late afternoon CW went for a drive in the mountains and called in at the home of Santa and his wife J. He stayed late. Once J was asleep CW and Santa drove back to the city and parked in a laneway near to the Ramsey home. When the signal came Santa went to the kitchen door while CW stayed in his car. Patsy let Santa in and offered him a cup of tea, they sat down and waited for the photographer to arrive.... they waited and waited... no photographer. Patsy had brought JonBenet's pink Barbie nightgown downstairs to the kitchen for her to change into for the photographer which she laid on a chair. After a while Patsy got tired, Santa suggested she lie down on the sofa in the living room, which she did and she soon fell asleep.

Santa then went upstairs to fetch JonBenet. While she was still in bed, as part of the prepping ritual, he drew a little red heart on the palm of her left hand and got a long length of cord from his sack which he tied loosely around her left wrist. Then he wrapped her little white blanket around her shoulders to keep her warm and cosy (and comforted) and led her tippytoe downstairs to the kitchen. Here he emptied the drugged fresh pineapple that he had brought in a plastic bag into a bowl and fed Jonbenet some of this favorite food of hers. Then he led her downstairs to the basement.

At a signal from Santa to the one watching through the basement toilet window, that it was safe to enter the house, the three others came in via the front door using keys from the supply that had been distributed around Boulder to Ramsey acquaintances by Patsy.

There was special surprise that the Californian guy had brought for JonBenet - it was a baby rabbit for her. As she crouched on the floor over the box that it was in and petting it, he picked up the rabbit and broke its neck. In absolute terror, JonBenet involuntarily emptied her her bladder, staining the fronts of her panties and longjohns with urine.
For the sexual abuse activities, the now compliant JonBenet had her soaked longjohns and panties removed and her right wrist bound with other end of the cord already around her left wrist. Her neck was encircled with a ligature made from another length of the same cord material and the handle of a paintbrush was broken off and tied into the end of the cord as turning device. From what I can deduce the ligature was repeatedly tightened and released during the abuse session, to simulate female orgasm for the pleasure of the pedophiles. At some point they found her loose hair was interfering with the functioning of the neck ligature and someone found a hairtie and caught the offending hair up in an extra bunch. I believe JonBenet was made to stand on a chair or stool and the cord length between her two wrists hooked to a device attached to one of the overhead pipes. In this way I think her bodyweight was borne by her feet, and her arms were kept outstretched and straight above her head for the duration of the abuse. I think the abusers wore black balaclavas over their heads, fibres from which were deposited over her thighs and Gap T shirt as they performed oral sex on her. The stungun I believe, was used as a control device and had been brought, probably by GM, and probably without the prior knowledge of the others. Eventually I think GM got a bit bored and shoved a paintbrush handle hard into Jonbenet's vagina. I think this was what caused her to scream that terrible scream at around 2 am.
I think at this point the pedophiles panicked, the one manipulating the neck ligature tightened the noose too tight as he tried to shut off the sound and GM picked up a baseball bat from the basement floor and whacked her over the head, both actions killing her almost in the one moment. GM, his fun over, grabbed his stungun and left immediately, tossing the baseball bat into the bushes on his way back to his sickbed in the basement of the house across the road, leaving Santa and the others stranded.

[aussiesheila]

part 2 of my reply to the first post on this thread by WallyCleaver asking for an IDI theory of the case.

I think CW, fearing one of the parents would be coming down the stairs at the sound of the scream, bolted for the trainroom window, grabbed a suitcase that was lying nearby, clambered onto it and exited through the window leaving a shoe skid mark behind on the wall, then ran to his car in the alleyway and drove back to his girlfriend's house.

I think Patsy had wakened at the sound of the scream and came down the basement stairs. Santa rushed out to stop her coming any closer assuring her that everything was alright, that there had just been a little accident and to go back upstairs. She did as she was told.

I think the pedophiles who were left at the house would have been frantic, realising they were in deep trouble and being unable to think of what to do to get themselves out of it. CG must have decided the best idea was to get help from his relative FW, who was at the time at home with his family. I think they phoned him from whichever phone the records went missing for and FW subsequently masterminded the entire coverup, which continues to this day.

The underwear on JonBenet’s body:

I think that JonBenet dressed herself in the size 10/12 underpants before going to the Whites' party. I think she did this because she had just had an argument with Patsy about what to wear to the party and had wet the pants she was wearing. She did not want to go back into the bathroom where her regular pants were kept because she had just had a fight in there with her mother over a red sweater that Patsy wanted her to wear and she didn't. Her mother was still in there angrily 'balling' the red sweater and yelling at JonBenet too, most probably. So Jonbenet got a pair of size 10/12 underpants from a new packet in a cupboard in her own room. The looseness of these oversize pants was not a problem because the tights she wore over the top of them held them up and in place and their bulkiness was hidden by the dress that hung down over both the panties and the tights.


The first 48 hours of the coverup:

I think FW was hell bent on deflecting any investigation into the murder away from pedophile activity.

I think the plan he came up with was to make it look like a kidnapping and to try to direct suspicion on someone, anyone, as long as it wasn't one of the pedophiles. Patsy was to write a ransom note and the body was to be hidden from John and everyone else until it could be safely disposed of somewhere in the mountains, preferably not to be discovered until decompostion had destroyed all traces of the sexual abuse and JonBenet would be seen as having been the victim of a failed kidnapping plot.

I think Santa was the one who got the little white blanket and lovingly wrapped JonBenet's body in it after it was taken down from the chair, the arms already stiffening with the beginnings of rigor mortis. He, alone of all of the pedophiles was devastated by her death, after all he/they had never intended for this to happen.

I think the Californian guy saw the piece of duct tape lying around near Patsy's paint tote tray and decided it would add a touch of authenticity to the kidnap scenario if, when the body was eventually found, the child was seen to have been gagged by the supposed kidnapper, so I think he put it over JonBenet's mouth after she had been killed.

I think FW dictated the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph of the note to Patsy over the phone. I think he knew about John's bonus he used that sum of $118,000 as way of implicating an employee of Access Graphics who might have known about the bonus and who they could pin the crime on if they failed to come up with a suitable foreigner as a candidate.

I think Patsy was then left on her own to complete the note with instructions to include threats that would stop John from calling the police or at least delay calling them for a time. This she duly did, but then went completely overboard turning the ransom note into a ludicrous three pager as she descended into a raging outburst at John for what it seems was anger that he was somehow responsible for what had happened, finally signing off with SBTC which I think was a last desperate plea for her own self - 'Saved by the Cross'.

FW instructed Patsy that she was to 'find' the ransom note in the morning. He told her not to ring the police but to ring him and his wife and they would come over immediately and take control of things.

I think FW had a connection in the BPD, none other than the Commander of the detective division. I think FW realized there was a strong possibility John would call the police, so he contacted the Commander prior to 6 am on the 26th and told him that should police be called to an apparent kidnapping at 755 15th Street, to prevent as much as possible, any serious investigation from taking place, which was why there was such a dearth of trained detectives called to the scene until after the body was found and why Linda Arndt was left alone in charge of the crime scene for so many hours despite repeated calls for backup assistance and why the Commander was so unwelcoming of the FBI assistance that was offered in the early hours after the 911 call.

This original coverup plan began to unravel when John did, as just about every parent of a kidnapped child has always done, that is, called the police, despite dire warnings not to. This original plan was completely destroyed when, before FW et al were able to dispose of JonBenet's body as planned, John Ramsey found it where they had hidden it in the wine cellar.

After organising Patsy, FW rang his contact in the BPD and told him that if they were to get a call about a suspected kidnapping they were not to bring in the FBI and they were not to investigate it too closely. He then sat around until morning waiting for the phone to ring.

I think after writing the note Patsy noticed the Barbie nightgown left in the kitchen and decided she would go down to the cellar and re-dress JonBenet's body in more presentable nightclothes than the one she was put to bed in. I think she got a flashlight from the kitchen drawer and went down in the dark to the cellar. I think when was confronted with the sight of the body and the state it was in she became so distressed that she was unable to do as she had intended, dropped the nightgown on the floor and fled in anguish and despair.

After going back to the kitchen and leaving the flashlight out on the bench she must have then crept upstairs and crawled into bed, still fully clothed and waited out whatever time remained until 5.50 am. Meanwhile in another house a few miles away the Ramsey friends F and P, were also awake, anxious and fully dressed, sitting waiting by the phone for the anticipated call.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Rude so very very rude and totally unecessary. Please ignore me. I plan to ignore you. Blah, Blah, Blah!!!

[WallyCleaver]

susan

Thanks, you're the first IDI to really try to put together a complete case theory.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Zoey
TWW: maybe I am looking at a different set of search warrants than you, but I see 19 pair of girls/childs underwear taken into evidence and not one of them mentions a size. Where did you find search warrants that have the size?

Zoey - www.acandyrose.com -P.Ramsey interview 2000

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Obviously the underwear were much too large for her or such a big deal wouldn't have been made out of it.
At this point, Patsy knew that the underwear were in question so why wouldn't she say JB wore a larger size?

<snip?>



0094

1 eight. There were probably some in there

2 that were too small.

3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?

4 A. Not typically, no.

5 MR. KANE: Okay.

So....you, Athena, have her saying size 8-10, here she says size 6-8, yet out of 15 pairs of her underwear taken in by the LE, all 15 pair are size 4 or 6. The neice they were originally purchased for was 12 or 13 years old and was described as being a "big girl". The underwear had to be huge on JB.
I'm sure underwear sizes run differently from store to store too, so comparing JC Penney sizes with Bloomingdales isn't proof of anything. IMO

I can assure you panties from any store in size 4-6 are for pre-school children usually 3-4 years old. Most panties run larger than age so just do the math. The police IMO were going by some published tabloid reports if you read it. They did not seem to sure what size anything was.

In any size charts for children the sizes range as JC Penney's charts would indicate don't care what store you shop in. 7-8 Small, 10-12 medium and 14-16 large. Children's sizes do not vary much at all from store to store.

In addition to that panties waists are elastic and would allow a larger pair of panties to be worn without falling down. Think of some of your underwear or slacks with elastic. I know I can wear smaller slacks with an elastic band than ones without. JMO

[nuisanceposter]

Just look at this, and tell me JonBenet would have chosen to wear those larger size undies. There's no way.


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128


Please note that Jayelles, who did this experiment, made her model from a child the same height and weight (one pound heavier) as JonBenet. The size 4/6 undies fit her just fine. The first picture is the size 4/6 undies on the model made from the child the same height and weight as JonBenet. The fourth picture shows the larger size undies, and even though they have an elastic waist, they aren't fitting snug around the model's waist.

There is no possible way I could be convinced that JonBenet chose to open a package of underwear too much too big for her and wear them on Christmas night. I think it's very interesting that she had never attempted to do so before, even though they package of undies had been purchased a month before. The pair she was found in were brand new and unwashed, and the other pairs were still in the package.

And seriously, how would Patsy not notice that JonBenet was wearing such extremely large undies when she changed her into long johns? Those undies would have been pulled off with the pants. Patsy didn't notice JB wearing giant undies, so I conclude that JB wasn't wearing those undies when she was put to bed. The person who redressed her must have chosen them to put on her....but why?

[MissOtisRegrets]

I don't understand the argument. If the panties JonBenet was wearing were so inappropriate, why is it assumed from that that the parents must have put them on her? Why would they have done that? And then left them on covered with urine and blood? I honestly don't understand what you are saying. I would think this was something that would point AWAY from the parents, not toward.

:seeya:

MissO

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
Just look at this, and tell me JonBenet would have chosen to wear those larger size undies. There's no way.


http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128


Please note that Jayelles, who did this experiment, made her model from a child the same height and weight (one pound heavier) as JonBenet. The size 4/6 undies fit her just fine. The first picture is the size 4/6 undies on the model made from the child the same height and weight as JonBenet. The fourth picture shows the larger size undies, and even though they have an elastic waist, they aren't fitting snug around the model's waist.

There is no possible way I could be convinced that JonBenet chose to open a package of underwear too much too big for her and wear them on Christmas night. I think it's very interesting that she had never attempted to do so before, even though they package of undies had been purchased a month before. The pair she was found in were brand new and unwashed, and the other pairs were still in the package.

And seriously, how would Patsy not notice that JonBenet was wearing such extremely large undies when she changed her into long johns? Those undies would have been pulled off with the pants. Patsy didn't notice JB wearing giant undies, so I conclude that JB wasn't wearing those undies when she was put to bed. The person who redressed her must have chosen them to put on her....but why?

Perhaprs those are the only clean pair that had Wednesday on them. JBR seemed a bright child who dressed herself. Even LHP said she would go to dress JBR and JBR would tell her to go away. My daughter was independent like that also.

That model is skinny and I see no rear on it. Those pictures and the sizes are deceptive as weight can be distributed differently on a child. I KNOW FOR A FACT that my daugther wore panties at least a couple of sizes in number than her age and she is/was an average size child. 4/5 are too small for an average child of 6 and JBR appeared to be very healthy to me. Healthy 2 year olds can wear a 4. 4T is which is toddler (are usually a bit bigger to wear over diapers). JMO

[nuisanceposter]

I think the redresser put them on her. I think there's no way JonBenet would have worn those herself when she had a drawer full of undies in her size, even ones identical to the ones she was found in.

I don't see why an intruder would go seek out another pair of undies for JB. I can't see an intruder deciding she needs a pair of undies, and going up to her underwear drawer, bypassing the loose undies to pick up a package of underwear not even open yet, opening it, and pulling a pair out to dress her in...not to mention he just so happened to pick the right day of the week.

I think finding these undies and putting them on her is something a parent would do. A parent would care if the child had undies on (or if she was clothed at all), and an intruder who just killed her in lust or revenge wouldn't. A parent would go get a pair of underwear, and an intruder trying to be quiet and get out before he was noticed wouldn't. An intruder who meant to abuse and kill JonBenet in revenge or in lust would not have bothered to go to the trouble to redress her afterwards. He would have left her lying there naked for greater shock value, or perhaps even posed her. He would not have gone on a search for undies, and if he had, why would he not select a pair that wasn't in a package?

I'm not entirely sure the redresser knew JonBenet was "covered" with urine and blood.

I also think perhaps these underwear were already in the basement, wrapped up as a Christmas gift for Jenny in a box that hadn't gotten shipped yet, and the redresser knew it - and chose to open that package and pull out the underwear rather than go up and get the right size pair. Lou Smit said once (and I can go find the quote if need be) that there was a box with partially unwrapped gifts in it in the basement. If these undies did indeed come out of that box, then there is absolutely no way any intruder would have known that. But a parent would have.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Athena


Perhaprs those are the only clean pair that had Wednesday on them. JBR seemed a bright child who dressed herself. Even LHP said she would go to dress JBR and JBR would tell her to go away. My daughter was independent like that also.

That model is skinny and I see no rear on it. Those pictures and the sizes are deceptive as weight can be distributed differently on a child. I KNOW FOR A FACT that my daugther wore panties at least a couple of sizes in number than her age and she is/was an average size child. 4/5 are too small for an average child of 6 and JBR appeared to be very healthy to me. Healthy 2 year olds can wear a 4. 4T is which is toddler (are usually a bit bigger to wear over diapers). JMO

Apparently JonBenet's reading skills were so poor that she needed someone to help her read Christmas gift tags. It's in DOI. Wednesday is a pretty big word for a kindergartener. And I totally believe it would have been important to Patsy to make sure her daughter was wearing the right day of the week. I'm not sure JB would have cared.

I don't believe JonBenet would have chosen to wear such ill-fitting undies.

That model may be skinny, but if you read what Jayelles wrote, she created the model from measurements. And how much butt do you expect a 6 year old to have? They aren't exactly known to have big booty in the back end. My mother used to say my butt was flat and bony when I tried to sit on her lap.

The child the model was made from is the same height and weight (plus a pound) as JonBenet was. Not every child fits right into the size clothing your child does. True, kids sizes are usually less than the age of the child, but these were Bloomie's undies, and it's been my experience that clothing made by better brand names fit better.

Regardless of whether the model has "back", the fact remains that the larger size underwear completely puddle around the model and would not have fit her well at all. Those larger undies would have been pulled right off with the velvet pants and Patsy would have noticed. She'd have to be practically blind or extremely negligent not to.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I think the redresser put them on her. I think there's no way JonBenet would have worn those herself when she had a drawer full of undies in her size, even ones identical to the ones she was found in.

I don't see why an intruder would go seek out another pair of undies for JB. I can't see an intruder deciding she needs a pair of undies, and going up to her underwear drawer, bypassing the loose undies to pick up a package of underwear not even open yet, opening it, and pulling a pair out to dress her in...not to mention he just so happened to pick the right day of the week.

I think finding these undies and putting them on her is something a parent would do. A parent would care if the child had undies on (or if she was clothed at all), and an intruder who just killed her in lust or revenge wouldn't. A parent would go get a pair of underwear, and an intruder trying to be quiet and get out before he was noticed wouldn't. An intruder who meant to abuse and kill JonBenet in revenge or in lust would not have bothered to go to the trouble to redress her afterwards. He would have left her lying there naked for greater shock value, or perhaps even posed her. He would not have gone on a search for undies, and if he had, why would he not select a pair that wasn't in a package?

I'm not entirely sure the redresser knew JonBenet was "covered" with urine and blood.

I also think perhaps these underwear were already in the basement, wrapped up as a Christmas gift for Jenny in a box that hadn't gotten shipped yet, and the redresser knew it - and chose to open that package and pull out the underwear rather than go up and get the right size pair. Lou Smit said once (and I can go find the quote if need be) that there was a box with partially unwrapped gifts in it in the basement. If these undies did indeed come out of that box, then there is absolutely no way any intruder would have known that. But a parent would have.

JonBenet was NOT covered with blood and urine. That is the point, np. ONLY THE UNDERPANTS WERE. Her body had been cleaned. There was urine and blood in her underpants. That means the panties were up after she was molested. (Was she moved?) Then they were pulled down again, she was cleaned, and the dirty underpants pulled back up.

I think it is significant that the underpants said "Wednesday" on them. If JonBenet had a similar pair in her own size in her drawer, she may not have been able to find them and opened the package, because she wanted to wear the "Wednesday" ones for Christmas. (I realize this goes against what Patsy said, when she said she didn't think JonBenet was strong enough to tear the package open, herself.)

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter
I also think perhaps these underwear were already in the basement, wrapped up as a Christmas gift for Jenny in a box that hadn't gotten shipped yet, and the redresser knew it - and chose to open that package and pull out the underwear rather than go up and get the right size pair. Lou Smit said once (and I can go find the quote if need be) that there was a box with partially unwrapped gifts in it in the basement. If these undies did indeed come out of that box, then there is absolutely no way any intruder would have known that. But a parent would have.

That would mean the perp took the opened package upstairs and put it in JonBenet's dresser after killing her. That's where they were found.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


That would mean the perp took the opened package upstairs and put it in JonBenet's dresser after killing her. That's where they were found.

Found by who? The Ramseys had that package of underwear in their possession for years. Please read post #157 of this thread.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=129109#post129109

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Apparently JonBenet's reading skills were so poor that she needed someone to help her read Christmas gift tags. It's in DOI. Wednesday is a pretty big word for a kindergartener. And I totally believe it would have been important to Patsy to make sure her daughter was wearing the right day of the week. I'm not sure JB would have cared.

I don't believe JonBenet would have chosen to wear such ill-fitting undies.

That model may be skinny, but if you read what Jayelles wrote, she created the model from measurements. And how much butt do you expect a 6 year old to have? They aren't exactly known to have big booty in the back end. My mother used to say my butt was flat and bony when I tried to sit on her lap.

The child the model was made from is the same height and weight (plus a pound) as JonBenet was. Not every child fits right into the size clothing your child does. True, kids sizes are usually less than the age of the child, but these were Bloomie's undies, and it's been my experience that clothing made by better brand names fit better.

Regardless of whether the model has "back", the fact remains that the larger size underwear completely puddle around the model and would not have fit her well at all. Those larger undies would have been pulled right off with the velvet pants and Patsy would have noticed. She'd have to be practically blind or extremely negligent not to.

The point is that a size 4/5 panties for a child of six would be too small. In kindergarten or before children can recognize days of week. Do you have a daughter? I'm not trying to be argumentative but girls tend to be more stubborn when it comes to what they wear.

My daughter was very adamant by the age of 4 of what she would or would not wear and got worse as she got older and I chose to pick my battles with her and that wasn't one of them. If she decided to wear stripes with polka dots - she did. My son on the other hand was more complacent and as long as his clothing was masculine he could care less (meaning if it had a baseball or train icon) he was cool with that.

Imported underwear where most of underwear comes from whether Bloomingdales or JcPenney tend to run smaller also than say "fruit of the loom" where they are made in the US.

Reading Christmas tags with names on them is a bit different from sight words that are taught in school and days of the week are sight words. Might not know how to spell them but would recognize the word on sight. JMHO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


Found by who? The Ramseys had that package of underwear in their possession for years. Please read post #157 of this thread.

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?p=129109#post129109

Thanks. I see what you mean. I was thinking BPD took the panties from her drawer.

What do you think happened? Why were the pants still on after she was molested and then pulled down, JB cleaned, and the dirty pants pulled back up? At what point and why do you think the Ramseys changed JB into the "Wednesday" pants? It had to be before she urinated. She wouldn't have urinated twice in that short time period. Why wouldn't the Ramseys have changed her pants again, if they had a supply in the basement?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


JonBenet was NOT covered with blood and urine. That is the point, np. ONLY THE UNDERPANTS WERE. Her body had been cleaned. There was urine and blood in her underpants. That means the panties were up after she was molested. (Was she moved?) Then they were pulled down again, she was cleaned, and the dirty underpants pulled back up.

I think it is significant that the underpants said "Wednesday" on them. If JonBenet had a similar pair in her own size in her drawer, she may not have been able to find them and opened the package, because she wanted to wear the "Wednesday" ones for Christmas. (I realize this goes against what Patsy said, when she said she didn't think JonBenet was strong enough to tear the package open, herself.)

Oh, I see what you mean. Sorry, I read your previous post wrong and thought you said JonBenet was covered with urine and blood.

The undies having urine and blood on them is part of the staging - well, their presence, and perhaps the blood...I know she bled from the vaginal injury, but I don't think what we see there is the result of an assault meant to satisfy carnal urges by the killer. I don't think her vaginal injury was incurred by one who was deriving sexual pleasure from it. It's too little. Those who prey on children in this manner for sex really assault them, and there is a lot more damage than the one wound in JonBenet. I'd expect to see multiple wounds from a repetitive motion with the implement. Not to be vulgar, but I also think there would have been anal penetration as well - just going on what other children who have been assaulted by a child sex predator have experienced.

I'm of the opinion that the injury was incurred to stage a predator scene (covering up the unintentional head wound death scene), that the killer assaulted her, strangled her (both while she was unconscious), then wiped her off, possibly to see if the vaginal wound looked convincing, then pulled her clothes back in place but left the soiled garments on her so it would be clear that she had been assaulted, etc.

The truth is, I don't know what happened to JonBenet. People will do some bizarre things when they feel their back is up against a wall and they desperately need an escape, and I think that's what we see here.

My opinion is that there is no evidence of an intruder, and there is evidence of both J&P in the crime scene and on the body. I think the Rs have always acted like they know exactly what happened to JonBenet and have been lying and covering it up the past ten years.

IMO.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I don't understand why Patsy/John would have changed her underpants BEFORE she urinated in them. And that would be what had to have happened.

If she did urinate twice, why not change them twice? Why pull the dirty ones back up after cleaning her off? Where are the ones she was wearing at the Whites?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Thanks. I see what you mean. I was thinking BPD took the panties from her drawer.

What do you think happened? Why were the pants still on after she was molested and then pulled down, JB cleaned, and the dirty pants pulled back up? At what point and why do you think the Ramseys changed JB into the "Wednesday" pants? It had to be before she urinated. She wouldn't have urinated twice in that short time period. Why wouldn't the Ramseys have changed her pants again, if they had a supply in the basement?

I hate to say it, but (and ladies, please be gentle on me when you disagree with what I say...:) ) I almost think there may have been an accident that night, either in bed or just before. Either that, or JonBenet wasn't cooperating with Patsy. I truly believe the head wound came first, and have to wonder what exactly happened there. Whatever it was, I don't believe anyone intended to kill her - although what else would you be doing, aiming something at the head of a child with enough force to cause an 8 inch fracture? There have even been times when I have considered the "Patsy caught John with JonBenet and hit her when she meant to hit him instead" theory. I have some trouble seeing John as a molester, though.

I think JonBenet was awake after they arrived home. It says in ST's book that the original story the Rs told was that she was awake, and they both tucked her in bed. I don't think he's lying about that because A. he was one of police and he'd know what the original reports said and B. the Rs sued him - and then offered him a settlement saying that he did not have to alter anything in his book and he could still sell it as it was written, among other things.

I think JonBenet was eating pineapple because she was hungry (mine are like that - we're at a restaurant or someone's house for dinner, and they're too busy t oeat so they're starving when we get home.) I think something happened after that, perhaps when she was going to bed. Maybe she woke up wet (ST's book says CBI said the Beauty and the Beast sheets tested positive for creatine, and could have been urinated on that night) and something happened then. Somehow she got hit on the head, and it would have dropped her immediately. According to experts, it was at least ten minutes before she was strangled, because the swelling of the brain and the pooled blood shows her heart was beating when she was hit on the head, and the development of the wound shows that her heart continued to beat afterwards.

The vaginal injury was incurred much closer to death. I would have to go looking, but I do believe Dr Wecht (yeah, I know) said that that wound showed response of the body but the response was not fully developed, indicating she died soon after it was inflicted.

I think the size 12s were put on JonBenet when she was unconscious (have to wonder what happened to the pair she'd had on - so I suspect they got soiled), and then she was injured vaginally and strangled. Then I suspect the killer pulled her pants down, checked their work, and pulled them back up again. Oooh, I forget where, but one account of the autopsy pics I read had an expert stating he thought he saw a bruise on her thigh. I think the undies are urine-stained from her bladder releasing in death, and there is the little amount there is because she had urinated earlier in the evening.

I need to go look - there was a poster at WS (I think) who said that police had a picture of JonBenet's bathroom, and in the picture you can see a pair of pants on the floor, looking as if they were left just as JonBenet would have left them after stepping out, and the undies were still inside. In this pic, it looked like the undies had a fudge stripe in them, you know what I mean, moms? I forget what the conversation was about that, it's been several months.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Athena


The point is that a size 4/5 panties for a child of six would be too small. In kindergarten or before children can recognize days of week. Do you have a daughter? I'm not trying to be argumentative but girls tend to be more stubborn when it comes to what they wear.

My daughter was very adamant by the age of 4 of what she would or would not wear and got worse as she got older and I chose to pick my battles with her and that wasn't one of them. If she decided to wear stripes with polka dots - she did. My son on the other hand was more complacent and as long as his clothing was masculine he could care less (meaning if it had a baseball or train icon) he was cool with that.

Imported underwear where most of underwear comes from whether Bloomingdales or JcPenney tend to run smaller also than say "fruit of the loom" where they are made in the US.

Reading Christmas tags with names on them is a bit different from sight words that are taught in school and days of the week are sight words. Might not know how to spell them but would recognize the word on sight. JMHO

I do have a daughter, who is now 11. When she was 18 months old, her refrain was "do it self." I couldn't help her into her seat, she wanted to "do it self."

Her attitude towards clothing is, once I find a favorite, I ain't letting go, even when I've outgrown it. I could see her wanting to wear a certain thing, but ultimately, I am the adult, and when I see she is clothed in something that doesn't fit well enough, it's up to me to make sure she's dressed the way she should be. My daughter would not be wearing undies that were that much too large for her, and I really have to doubt a child would want to spend much time wearing something that is that much too big - especially when it would gather and bunch up in her crotch when she was wearing clothes over it.

My sons are the same way about clothes as yours, and I am the same way with them. I don't care what they wear as long it fits the way it's supposed to.

I wonder if the Bloomies underwear is made by a company that would have its brand name somewhere on the undies. I'm interested enough to ask Jayelles what if any labels or brand names she can see on the Bloomies in her experiment.

The "wednesday" was written in script on the waistband area of the undies. It's really hard for kids as young as 6 to read script, but I would assume that she'd be able to recognize the names of the members of her family on sight. That's something you see on a regular basis at home.

[MissOtisRegrets]

But, np, if Patsy wouldn't have allowed JonBenet to wear them, why would she, herself, have put them on her?

[MissOtisRegrets]

I know I've seen a list of what BPD took from the Ramsey house. Now I can't find it. If anyone knows where it is, I would appreciate their posting a link.

TIA

:seeya:

MissO

[Athena]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


I do have a daughter, who is now 11. When she was 18 months old, her refrain was "do it self." I couldn't help her into her seat, she wanted to "do it self."

Her attitude towards clothing is, once I find a favorite, I ain't letting go, even when I've outgrown it. I could see her wanting to wear a certain thing, but ultimately, I am the adult, and when I see she is clothed in something that doesn't fit well enough, it's up to me to make sure she's dressed the way she should be. My daughter would not be wearing undies that were that much too large for her, and I really have to doubt a child would want to spend much time wearing something that is that much too big - especially when it would gather and bunch up in her crotch when she was wearing clothes over it.

My sons are the same way about clothes as yours, and I am the same way with them. I don't care what they wear as long it fits the way it's supposed to.

I wonder if the Bloomies underwear is made by a company that would have its brand name somewhere on the undies. I'm interested enough to ask Jayelles what if any labels or brand names she can see on the Bloomies in her experiment.

The "wednesday" was written in script on the waistband area of the undies. It's really hard for kids as young as 6 to read script, but I would assume that she'd be able to recognize the names of the members of her family on sight. That's something you see on a regular basis at home.

NP - wish I could post a link but I have a girlfriend who was a buyer for Bloomingdales and I believe she told me that the manufacturer of children's underwear was in Turkey. Not going to swear to that though since that is from my recollection. :)

I do agree with you that it would be hard for a child to read script at age 6 even knowing sight words; and yes after thinking about it even if she did not know how to spell names she should have been able to decipher at least the first letter like B for Burke. Not sure about John and Patsy though since she may have just looked for mom and dad; did they say if they used their first names or Mom and Dad? Not important if you don't know - just curious. :)

On a side note, boys are so much easier than girls when it came to dressing them at least when they were younger. JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

According to this interview with Patsy, Patsy put the package of uderwear in JB's bathroom, and JB opened it and put them on.


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm


21 Q. Okay. What we are trying to

22 understand is whether -- we are trying to

23 understand why she is wearing such a large

24 pair of underpants. We are hoping you can

25 help us if you have a recollection of it.

0084

1 A. I am sure that I put the package

2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened

3 them and put them on.

4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought

5 these sometime in mid to early December, is

6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,

7 you bought them in November?

8 A. Right.

9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing

10 these? And I don't mean this specific day

11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you

12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in

13 this package of underpants and had been

14 wearing them since the trip to New York in

15 November?

16 A. I don't remember.

17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the

18 laundry for the family, that is part of her

19 duties; is that correct?

20 A. Correct.

21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash

22 clothes on occasion?

23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.

24 Q. Do you have any recollection of

25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

0085

1 A. Not specifically.

2 Q. Was it something that, the fact

3 that she is wearing these underpants designed

4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and

5 I will give you a minute to think about it

6 because I know it is tough to try to pin

7 down a couple of months of casual

8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any

9 conversations with her concerning the fact

10 that she is wearing underwear that is just

11 too large for her?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it

14 was, if it had caught your attention or came

15 to your attention, do you think you might

16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't

17 fit, put something on that fits, that is

18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,

19 had come to your attention --

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

0086

1 I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see

10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I think a lot of the time the simplest answer turns out to be the correct one, and the simplest answer to the underpants question imo is that JonBenet put on the "Wednesday" pants, herself, to wear to the White's, because they were part of her Christmas experience that year.

[MissOtisRegrets]

What I find odd about this is that the underpants were up AFTER she had been molested but BEFORE she had been cleaned. I wonder if she was garrotted and molested in the boiler room (where Patsy's paintbox and shards from the breaking brush were found) and, then, moved to the wine cellar, where she was cleaned and posed. (The underpants having been pulled up for the move to the wine cellar.)

JMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Obviously the underwear were much too large for her or such a big deal wouldn't have been made out of it.
At this point, Patsy knew that the underwear were in question so why wouldn't she say JB wore a larger size?

2001 interview/Patsy:

11 Q. And I will just state a fact

12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties

13 taken out of, by the police, out of

14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is

15 that where she kept -

16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

17 Q. -- where you were describing that

18 they were just put in that drawer?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

25 A. I would say more like six to

0094

1 eight. There were probably some in there

2 that were too small.

3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?

4 A. Not typically, no.

5 MR. KANE: Okay.

So....you, Athena, have her saying size 8-10, here she says size 6-8, yet out of 15 pairs of her underwear taken in by the LE, all 15 pair are size 4 or 6. The neice they were originally purchased for was 12 or 13 years old and was described as being a "big girl". The underwear had to be huge on JB.
I'm sure underwear sizes run differently from store to store too, so comparing JC Penney sizes with Bloomingdales isn't proof of anything. IMO

Thank you for posting this...when I read what Athena had posted...I KNEW that I had read otherwise, in one of the interviews (the one that you posted here). We also have to remember that JB was ONLY 45 pounds. My daughter is 5 and weighs 35 pounds and she wears a size 4, she can wear a 5, but they are a little bit big on her. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
What I find odd about this is that the underpants were up AFTER she had been molested but BEFORE she had been cleaned. I wonder if she was garrotted and molested in the boiler room (where Patsy's paintbox and shards from the breaking brush were found) and, then, moved to the wine cellar, where she was cleaned and posed. (The underpants having been pulled up for the move to the wine cellar.)

JMO IMO I believe you are right about that.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
IMO I believe you are right about that.

Shill...when do YOU believe that she was changed into those size 12 undies? Do you believe that she had them on at the White's party? Or do you think that the killer put them on her?? TIA

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


Shill...when do YOU believe that she was changed into those size 12 undies? Do you believe that she had them on at the White's party? Or do you think that the killer put them on her?? TIA I believe she had them on and they were not placed on her by the killer.
Is it not an assumption that she had been wearing smaller panties when she was attacked and changed into bigger panties after she died? Is there any proof she was wearing a different pair, because they don't seem to have this alleged missing pair in evidence.
To argue that Patsy wouldn't have put those on her for the party, but Patsy put them on JB after she killed her, seems illogical to me.
IMO The only person who who'd put them on JB is JB. And she could have done this before the party with out Patsy knowing, or she could have awoke and put them on after going downstairs for some pineapple.

Was the box of panties wrapped in Christmas wrapping?

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


Thank you for posting this...when I read what Athena had posted...I KNEW that I had read otherwise, in one of the interviews (the one that you posted here). We also have to remember that JB was ONLY 45 pounds. My daughter is 5 and weighs 35 pounds and she wears a size 4, she can wear a 5, but they are a little bit big on her. IMO

Your daughter is below average weight for a 5 year old or is small. Please note that JBR falls right ON the average weight of a six year old. If you read the transcript again please note that the question asked of Patsy was what size was she buying -- she responded 8 to 10. When asked about the size 6 being removed she said some were too small. Maybe that's why they were still in there because they didn't fit. Isn't it just possible that the trip to Bloomingdales in November 1996 she bought JBR size 8-10 and her niece 12? That is what my interpretation was.

33 1/4 3 years
38 3/4 4 years
42 1/2 5 years
47 1/2 6 years
53 1/2 7 years

http://www.babybag.com/articles/htwt_av.htm

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
I believe she had them on and they were not placed on her by the killer.
Is it not an assumption that she had been wearing smaller panties when she was attacked and changed into bigger panties after she died? Is there any proof she was wearing a different pair, because they don't seem to have this alleged missing pair in evidence.
To argue that Patsy wouldn't have put those on her for the party, but Patsy put them on JB after she killed her, seems illogical to me.
IMO The only person who who'd put them on JB is JB. And she could have done this before the party with out Patsy knowing, or she could have awoke and put them on after going downstairs for some pineapple.

Was the box of panties wrapped in Christmas wrapping?

The panties were in a drawer upstairs not in the basement and they were not wrapped. Her intention was to give them to a niece but JBR liked them so she kept them and stuck them in her drawer.

Re: the partially opened Christmas gifts from another post above:

I don't have a link because I don't remember where I read it -- but the gifts left in the basement were Burkes. Patsy had partially opened one because when she retrieved the gifts from the basement for Christmas she partially unwrapped a couple of Burke's gifts because some were meant for Christmas and some were for his birthday wrapped in the same paper and she left the ones for his birthday down there. I remember that so well because I related and laughed when I read it. I have done that with my daughter's gifts whose birthday is a week after Christmas. LOL JMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


Your daughter is below average weight for a 5 year old or is small. Please note that JBR falls right ON the average weight of a six year old. If you read the transcript again please note that the question asked of Patsy was what size was she buying -- she responded 8 to 10. When asked about the size 6 being removed she said some were too small. Maybe that's why they were still in there because they didn't fit. Isn't it just possible that the trip to Bloomingdales in November 1996 she bought JBR size 8-10 and her niece 12? That is what my interpretation was.

33 1/4 3 years
38 3/4 4 years
42 1/2 5 years
47 1/2 6 years
53 1/2 7 years

http://www.babybag.com/articles/htwt_av.htm

But the interview that TWW quoted and the one that I have read, says that Patsy stated that JB wore sizes 6-8...not 8-10. (She posted the interview above). Is this just ONE more added inconsistancy in Patsy's interviews? Where did you find that quote about JB wearing size 8-10. JB only weighed 45 pounds, thats only 10 more pounds more than my five year old...who wears a size 4-5. JB hadn't even been six, but for four months...so she wasn't even 6 and 1/2 yet. Anyway, I wonder why Patsy would say size 6-8 in one interview...and 8-10 in another? IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


Anyway, I wonder why Patsy would say size 6-8 in one interview...and 8-10 in another? Why do you wonder?

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by Ames


But the interview that TWW quoted and the one that I have read, says that Patsy stated that JB wore sizes 6-8...not 8-10. (She posted the interview above). Is this just ONE more added inconsistancy in Patsy's interviews? Where did you find that quote about JB wearing size 8-10. JB only weighed 45 pounds, thats only 10 more pounds more than my five year old...who wears a size 4-5. JB hadn't even been six, but for four months...so she wasn't even 6 and 1/2 yet. Anyway, I wonder why Patsy would say size 6-8 in one interview...and 8-10 in another? IMO

17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your

18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;

19 correct?

20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

21 Q. She was six years old?

22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

23 Q. What size underpants would you

24 normally buy for her?

25 A. 8 to 10.


http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Ames


But the interview that TWW quoted and the one that I have read, says that Patsy stated that JB wore sizes 6-8...not 8-10. (She posted the interview above). Is this just ONE more added inconsistancy in Patsy's interviews? Where did you find that quote about JB wearing size 8-10. JB only weighed 45 pounds, thats only 10 more pounds more than my five year old...who wears a size 4-5. JB hadn't even been six, but for four months...so she wasn't even 6 and 1/2 yet. Anyway, I wonder why Patsy would say size 6-8 in one interview...and 8-10 in another? IMO

Ames, Patsy was consistently inconsistent about the underwear. The fact that the Ramseys had them in their possession while police were looking for them even after they moved from Atlanta plus Patsy's inconsistency about these underwear both tell me there is something to hide about these underwear.

Patsy said JonBenet opened the package herself, but didn't say she saw that. When, Christmas Day? Supposedly the underwear had been in her drawer since way before then - why would that night be the night that JonBenet opened a package (that was sealed in such a way witrh a plastic cable tie that she'd need scissors to snip it open) and put on a stiff new pair that hadn't even been washed yet? Those underwear had never been worn before the night she was killed. And why did the Ramseys hold onto them, even taking them with them when they moved from one place to another? The police did not have those underwear in their possession - the Ramseys did, for years.

What size were all of the other pairs of underwear in JonBenet's drawer? That should tell you what size underwear she wore. I guaratee you there were very few as big as size 12/14.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Perhaprs those are the only clean pair that had Wednesday on them. JBR seemed a bright child who dressed herself. Even LHP said she would go to dress JBR and JBR would tell her to go away. My daughter was independent like that also.

That model is skinny and I see no rear on it. Those pictures and the sizes are deceptive as weight can be distributed differently on a child. I KNOW FOR A FACT that my daugther wore panties at least a couple of sizes in number than her age and she is/was an average size child. 4/5 are too small for an average child of 6 and JBR appeared to be very healthy to me. Healthy 2 year olds can wear a 4. 4T is which is toddler (are usually a bit bigger to wear over diapers). JMO

Don't know how JB could have picked out the appropriate day of the week undies when she couldn't read.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Don't know how JB could have picked out the appropriate day of the week undies when she couldn't read.

Maybe they were color-coded most day of the week panties are. She also had them in her own size.

There is no proof that Patsy put those underwear on her. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Ames


But the interview that TWW quoted and the one that I have read, says that Patsy stated that JB wore sizes 6-8...not 8-10. (She posted the interview above). Is this just ONE more added inconsistancy in Patsy's interviews? Where did you find that quote about JB wearing size 8-10. JB only weighed 45 pounds, thats only 10 more pounds more than my five year old...who wears a size 4-5. JB hadn't even been six, but for four months...so she wasn't even 6 and 1/2 yet. Anyway, I wonder why Patsy would say size 6-8 in one interview...and 8-10 in another? IMO

Ames...funny thing but what Athena quoted and what I quoted were in the same interview.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Ames...funny thing but what Athena quoted and what I quoted were in the same interview.

Reread the interview in the context the answers were given to the questions asked. :shrug:

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Maybe they were color-coded most day of the week panties are. She also had them in her own size.

There is no proof that Patsy put those underwear on her. JMO

I know you are going to make me find the link but Patsy did state at one point that she didn't know or didn't remember if she bought JB the same underwear in her size. If you tell me that she did say she bought them, I will search for the link that says she doesn't know and then we will have yet another inconsistancy in her stories.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


Reread the interview in the context the answers were given to the questions asked. :shrug:

It doesn't matter how the answers were given or the questions asked. LE does that to catch inconsistancies in stories. The question was the same, even if asked a diggerent way and it shouldn't have been difficult for her to come up with the same answer she had just given moments before. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
Why do you wonder?

Not trying to be mean here...but, that sure is a stupid question. UHHH...I wonder....MAYBE because she told them TWO different things in the SAME interview. Size 6-8......or 8-10.....which size did she wear? You would have thought that her MOM wouldn't have been confused about that. She couldn't seem to make up her guilty mind!!! IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by Athena


Reread the interview in the context the answers were given to the questions asked. :shrug:

This is what it says...I don't know what you mean by "the context the answers were given to the questions asked".


Part of the interview:

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

25 A. I would say more like six to

0094

1 eight.


It plainly says in the ANSWER portion...."I would say more like six to eight". That tells me that she normally would wear 6-8...and NOT 8-10. 8-10 would have been large on her....as I have stated before...she only weighed 45 pounds!! Ten more pounds than my five year old, that is UNDER weight for her age. JB looked pretty petite in pictures that I have seen of her. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


Ames...funny thing but what Athena quoted and what I quoted were in the same interview.

I didn't notice that...thanks for pointing that out. Even MORE of a reason to be consistant....if it was the SAME interview....DUHHHHH Patsy. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


Not trying to be mean here...but, that sure is a stupid question. UHHH...I wonder....MAYBE because she told them TWO different things in the SAME interview. Size 6-8......or 8-10.....which size did she wear? You would have thought that her MOM wouldn't have been confused about that. She couldn't seem to make up her guilty mind!!! IMO So you care about it because "it shows Patsy is confused about the sizes" Well we should probably hang her for being confused.
It's not like she commited perjury.
If JB was a size 8, she could have worn both. Apparently she can wear size 12s also.

"Stupid is as stupid does." Forest Gump

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
So you care about it because "it shows Patsy is confused about the sizes" Well we should probably hang her for being confused.
It's not like she commited perjury.
If JB was a size 8, she could have worn both. Apparently she can wear size 12s also.

"Stupid is as stupid does." Forest Gump

Forest Gump? Hey, I liked that movie!

No WAY she could have worn size 12...that is double the size that she normally wore. They would have come up to her armpits. She was NOT that big of a child.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


This is what it says...I don't know what you mean by "the context the answers were given to the questions asked".


Part of the interview:

20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was

21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?

22 Would that have been about the size pair of

23 panties that she wore when she was six years

24 old?

A

25 A. I would say more like six to

0094

1 eight.


It plainly says in the ANSWER portion...."I would say more like six to eight". That tells me that she normally would wear 6-8...and NOT 8-10. 8-10 would have been large on her....as I have stated before...she only weighed 45 pounds!! Ten more pounds than my five year old, that is UNDER weight for her age. JB looked pretty petite in pictures that I have seen of her. IMO

Ames it clear to me that you either did not read what I posted or misinterpreted what I posted including the average charts. LOL -- I think I'm done with the underwear business. JMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by shill
I believe she had them on and they were not placed on her by the killer.
Is it not an assumption that she had been wearing smaller panties when she was attacked and changed into bigger panties after she died? Is there any proof she was wearing a different pair, because they don't seem to have this alleged missing pair in evidence.
To argue that Patsy wouldn't have put those on her for the party, but Patsy put them on JB after she killed her, seems illogical to me.
IMO The only person who who'd put them on JB is JB. And she could have done this before the party with out Patsy knowing, or she could have awoke and put them on after going downstairs for some pineapple.



I completely agree, Shill!

:beer:

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Athena


Ames it clear to me that you either did not read what I posted or misinterpreted what I posted including the average charts. LOL -- I think I'm done with the underwear business. JMO

I just called my nephews wife who gave me the height weight of my gr. niece She was born the day after the twin towers came down in New York 911 She weighs 43.8 pounds and her underwear size is a 4-6 So maybe it is height dependent as well?

[Athena]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


I just called my nephews wife who gave me the height weight of my gr. niece She was born the day after the twin towers came down in New York 911 She weighs 43.8 pounds and her underwear size is a 4-6 So maybe it is height dependent as well?

Weight, height and body proportions. Weight can be distributed differently even with children. My daughter has always fallen within the standard size charts and always wore a larger size than her age. JBR was 46lbs and 47" tall. According to this chart it would make sense that your Gr.niece wears a 4-6 and JBR would have worn 8-10. Appears JBR is taller than average.

Age Height Chest Waist
-
4-5y 43½ 23 21
-
5-6y 45½ 23½ 21½
-
7-8y 50½ 25 23

9-10y 55 27 24½

Average Weight Average Weight
for Girls

(pounds) AGE

38 3/4 4 years
42 1/2 5 years
47 1/2 6 years
53 1/2 7 years

[Zoey]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


I just called my nephews wife who gave me the height weight of my gr. niece She was born the day after the twin towers came down in New York 911 She weighs 43.8 pounds and her underwear size is a 4-6 So maybe it is height dependent as well?


That is odd. My niece weighs 46 pounds, is average height and wears a size 8-10. She is 6 1/2 years old. She has size 12's that she should be in before years end.

In one of the interviews you all posted, it says an 85 pound person would wear a size 12. I graduated from high school weighing 70 pounds. I can guarantee you, I did not wear a little girls size 12! The would have cut off the circulation down there, if you know what I mean. This is not only my opinion, this is fact.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Zoey



That is odd. My niece weighs 46 pounds, is average height and wears a size 8-10. She is 6 1/2 years old. She has size 12's that she should be in before years end.

In one of the interviews you all posted, it says an 85 pound person would wear a size 12. I graduated from high school weighing 70 pounds. I can guarantee you, I did not wear a little girls size 12! The would have cut off the circulation down there, if you know what I mean. This is not only my opinion, this is fact.

We can go round and round on this until the cows come home but the fact is, someone in authority visibly noticed that the underwear were way too large for JB. That is a fact, or else it would not be such a big deal.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by Zoey



That is odd. My niece weighs 46 pounds, is average height and wears a size 8-10. She is 6 1/2 years old. She has size 12's that she should be in before years end.

In one of the interviews you all posted, it says an 85 pound person would wear a size 12. I graduated from high school weighing 70 pounds. I can guarantee you, I did not wear a little girls size 12! The would have cut off the circulation down there, if you know what I mean. This is not only my opinion, this is fact.

Are you discussing underwear size or clothing size thats two different matters. I weighed 98 pounds after having my first son. I many times wore size 12 or 14 girls clothing or 2 pet. That was not however my underwear size at the time. I have no idea anymore what size my undies were. I was wearing more adult and newly married undies at that time. There is a huge difference between adult and child undies maybe size wise it would have worked... although you were wearing more the style teens would wear? I know I did even though I was small.

It is not my current problem so ? I don't think my nephews wife would lie to me about my little nieces underwear though. I didn't tell her why I wanted to know. She knows I give nice gifts now and then...so the question didn't just jump out at her. :shrug:

[shill]

So what does the over sized panties prove?

IMO it would seem to prove that the Ramseys didn't kill her, because the arguement has been that Patsy wouldn't have dressed JB in those large panties

[lucky13]

Originally posted by shill
So what does the over sized panties prove?

IMO it would seem to prove that the Ramseys didn't kill her, because the arguement has been that Patsy wouldn't have dressed JB in those large panties
Over sized panties prove that whoever put them on her was concerned that they say WEDNESDAY on them, but not aware of just how wrong the size was. You're right- I can't see Patsy doing that. I could however, see a man(John) doing it. MOO

[LindaA]

If the panties were in JB's drawer in her room and she was redressed in the basement it would imply that the person got them ahead of time. Could they have picked larger ones because they would be easier to put on a dead body? That would imply premeditation, IMO.

If they found they needed them in the process of the murder, it would imply that a RDI because they would have been more likely to have gone back up to her room to retrieve them with the rest of the family there. But then why would they have opened a package and gotten over-sized ones? Either R or I would have just grabbed the first pair they put their hand on, I would think.

The most likely theory, I think, is that a headstrong little girl, determined to wear them put them on herself before the party and would rather be uncomfortable than admit she was wrong. But that doesn't explain why PR didn't notice them when she changed JBR for bed. More possible than the other two scenarios, IMO.

[lucky13]

Originally posted by LindaA
If the panties were in JB's drawer in her room and she was redressed in the basement it would imply that the person got them ahead of time. Could they have picked larger ones because they would be easier to put on a dead body? That would imply premeditation, IMO.

If they found they needed them in the process of the murder, it would imply that a RDI because they would have been more likely to have gone back up to her room to retrieve them with the rest of the family there. But then why would they have opened a package and gotten over-sized ones? Either R or I would have just grabbed the first pair they put their hand on, I would think.

The most likely theory, I think, is that a headstrong little girl, determined to wear them put them on herself before the party and would rather be uncomfortable than admit she was wrong. But that doesn't explain why PR didn't notice them when she changed JBR for bed. More possible than the other two scenarios, IMO.
IMO, JB was too intelligent to have WANTED to wear panties that were obviously WAAAY too big. They would have been very uncomfortable & bunched up & unsightly. It would have looked silly & horrible.( Plus her mama taught her that appearance was VERY important.)
What about the partially unwrapped gifts that were still in the basement?? Maybe that box with that giant yellow 'F' on it thats in the photo of her blanket in the wine cellar held the oversized panties, along with something from FAO Shwartz. Or it was in a similar box nearby. It would have been out of pure convenience to use them from right there.
MOO

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by lucky13

IMO, JB was too intelligent to have WANTED to wear panties that were obviously WAAAY too big. They would have been very uncomfortable & bunched up & unsightly. It would have looked silly & horrible.( Plus her mama taught her that appearance was VERY important.)
What about the partially unwrapped gifts that were still in the basement?? Maybe that box with that giant yellow 'F' on it thats in the photo of her blanket in the wine cellar held the oversized panties, along with something from FAO Shwartz. Or it was in a similar box nearby. It would have been out of pure convenience to use them from right there.
MOO

How many intruders would have thought to look in a FAO Shwartz box for underware too big or not. That would be
someone knowing the contents of that box.

[Athena]

Guess noone pays attention to my posts anymore. :shrug:

The FAO Schwartz boxes in the basement were Burke's birthday presents which Patsy had to partially unwrap because she hadn't labelled which ones were for Christmas v his birthday. JMO

Also re: the underwear -- the questions were asked about the underwear because of the tabloids and the fuss made in those tabloids. Who knows if that stuff was even true.

One thing I KNOW for certain is that the comparison of the underwear size 4/5 v 12-14 is deceptive period as no matter that the 12-14 were too big the 4/5 were DEFINITELY too small and used for shock value. JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by lucky13

IMO, JB was too intelligent to have WANTED to wear panties that were obviously WAAAY too big. They would have been very uncomfortable & bunched up & unsightly. It would have looked silly & horrible.( Plus her mama taught her that appearance was VERY important.)

<snip>



lol - Probably had nothing to do with her intelligence. More likely had to do with her getting her way.
JMO

[sweetcharlotte]

Originally posted by Athena
Guess noone pays attention to my posts anymore. :shrug:


I do. Now what did you say? LOL

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by sweetcharlotte


lol - Probably had nothing to do with her intelligence. More likely had to do with her getting her way.
JMO

At last something we can agree on! :seeya:

[shill]

Originally posted by lucky13

IMO, JB was too intelligent to have WANTED to wear panties that were obviously WAAAY too big. They would have been very uncomfortable & bunched up & unsightly. It would have looked silly & horrible. So how did they get her to parade around in those silly costumes?
And didn't JB refuse to wear the same outfit as Patsy that night?
And JB liked those panties.

[shill]

Originally posted by Athena
Guess no one pays attention to my posts anymore. :shrug:


What they don't know, won't hurt their theories.
Stop making sense and they'll read them.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
So how did they get her to parade around in those silly costumes?
And didn't JB refuse to wear the same outfit as Patsy that night?
And JB liked those panties.

Shill you know JB liked those panties how. Because Patsy said so? Patsy would have had no motivation to say that would she under the circumstances she was being interviewed as a suspect in a murder?! Unless JonBenet told you personally she liked those panties. Heresay.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill

What they don't know, won't hurt their theories.
Stop making sense and they'll read them.

We could say the same about IDIs, Shill.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
So what does the over sized panties prove?

IMO it would seem to prove that the Ramseys didn't kill her, because the arguement has been that Patsy wouldn't have dressed JB in those large panties

Nope, but John could have been the one to stick the big panties on her. He is a man, he wouldn't have noticed the difference.

[Ames]

Originally posted by lucky13

Over sized panties prove that whoever put them on her was concerned that they say WEDNESDAY on them, but not aware of just how wrong the size was. You're right- I can't see Patsy doing that. I could however, see a man(John) doing it. MOO

I just posted the same thing about John...sorry...I didn't see your post at first.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Shill you know JB liked those panties how. Because Patsy said so? Patsy would have had no motivation to say that would she under the circumstances she was being interviewed as a suspect in a murder?! Unless JonBenet told you personally she liked those panties. Heresay. Yes it's hearsay, just like most of the evidence pointing to the Ramseys.
It would explain why she was wearing them.
So do you believe Patsy wouldn't have put them on her for the party, but would put them on her after she was murdered?
Why after she was murdered did she need to wear panties at all?
When you pee, do you pull your pants down, then your long johns, and then your underwear,
or do you pull them all down at the same time and then all back up?
To change her panties, the killer would have to pull off her pants and long johns completely, pull off her original underwear, then put a new pair on that didn't fit, pull her long johns and pants completely back on, all so her panties said Wednesday, to fool us into believing what?
Seems that it's only hearsay that she was wearing a different pair of panties before the attack.

[shill]

Face it, there is no motive for the pantie change.
Just RDIs looking to catch Patsy lying.
And yet they state no reason why Patsy needs to lie about the panties to protect herself.

[Athena]

Originally posted by shill
Face it, there is no motive for the pantie change.
Just RDIs looking to catch Patsy lying.
And yet they state no reason why Patsy needs to lie about the panties to protect herself.

The panty issue is really being overdone as we don't know who put the panties on the JBR in the first place. It could have been JBR when she dressed herself or the killer.

I saw no lie in the interview. The way I read it was that very recently she had bought new panties size 8-10 and the ones she was currently wearing were 6-8. When the police mentioned 4 or 6 she said more like 6-8 and there were some in there that were too small.

The difference in waist sizes would have only been approximately 2-3 inches and panties do have flexible elastic.

If you wear a size small ladies underwear and decide to wear a large - they are not going to fall down or necessarily bag up either. :shrug:

[shill]

IMO Rosebuds would be the only reason for those panties to be purposefully put on JB.:rose:

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
IMO Rosebuds would be the only reason for those panties to be purposefully put on JB.:rose:


What about them being WEDNESDAY panties? They were day of the week panties, and Christmas was on Wednesday that year. That makes more sense than the rosebuds...of course, they both could have had something to do with it, who knows. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames



What about them being WEDNESDAY panties? They were day of the week panties, and Christmas was on Wednesday that year. That makes more sense than the rosebuds...of course, they both could have had something to do with it, who knows. IMO I don't understand why they needed to say Wednesday. Why did the day have to be correct if they were replacement panties?
It would make sense that they said Wednesday if they were not replacements.
I must have missed the explanation for this reasoning, sorry.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
I don't understand why they needed to say Wednesday. Why did the day have to be correct if they were replacement panties?
It would make sense that they said Wednesday if they were not replacements.
I must have missed the explanation for this reasoning, sorry.

When the person that put them on her, went up to her bedroom and opened the package and took them out (which by the way, makes me wonder if the pack of panties was taken into evidence and dusted for fingerprints...I believe that they were), they apparently wanted it to either look like JB put those huge panties on herself...which I doubt....or wanted it to look like, for some reason, that she was killed on Christmas night...opposed to the morning of the 26th. (IMO)

[Ames]

Patsy had said that when she bought the size 12 bloomies, from Bloomingdales....for a relative (her niece?), that she had also bought some for JB in HER size for her to wear. Does anyone know what happened to THOSE Wednesday panties? I suppose that those are the ones that she wore to the party...that would make sense...because they FIT her. And maybe, the killer changed her into the bigger ones, after she probably soiled them. Who knows...while being strangled, or after the hit on the head...she may have lost control of her bowels...and there may have been fecal matter in the original Bloomy (size 6) panties..or whatever size it was that JB wore...I have heard size 6, and I have also heard 8-10. Whatever the case may be...Patsy bought TWO packs in different sizes...it would be interesting to find out whatever happened to JB's Wednesday Panties...the ones in HER size.

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


they apparently wanted it to either look like JB put those huge panties on herself...which I doubt....or wanted it to look like, for some reason, that she was killed on Christmas night...opposed to the morning of the 26th. (IMO) 25th-26th how does this help with the staging? To put Thursdays on would make no sense, she went to bed on Wednesday.
And if they are so oversized it's obvious, it should have been obvious to the killer someone would notice that they are not the same ones she was wearing before the crime, even if they do say Wednesday.

And if it "looks like JB put those huge panties on herself", maybe she did. But what would be the advantage of making it look like she put them on?

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
25th-26th how does this help with the staging? To put Thursdays on would make no sense, she went to bed on Wednesday.
And if they are so oversized it's obvious, it should have been obvious to the killer someone would notice that they are not the same ones she was wearing before the crime, even if they do say Wednesday.

And if it "looks like JB put those huge panties on herself", maybe she did. But what would be the advantage of making it look like she put them on?

In my opinion only....the panties were changed, and the original Wednesday panties, were taken and destoyed. In the killer's haste, I doubt that he realized just how big they were on her. I believe that the person that put them on her was a man (John Ramsey)...and he had no clue about little girl panty sizes. I believe that Patsy sent John up to JB bedroom to grab some clean panties....so he did...and in his haste and the fact that he was probably freaking out by then....he grab the wrong size...not realizing what he had done. IMO One other thing, another poster stated that maybe JB had wet the bed and then cleaned herself, and put those undies on. Well, Patsy said that she didn't wet the bed that night....and if she did, where is the panties that she took off? I firmly believe that if she had of been killed in those oversize panties...there would have been more urine and possibly fecal matter in them...and blood. That's why I think that she was changed. There just wasn't alot of evidence in those panties that she was found in, for them to have been the ones that she was wearing at the time of her murder. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames
Patsy had said that when she bought the size 12 bloomies, from Bloomingdales....for a relative (her niece?), that she had also bought some for JB in HER size for her to wear. Does anyone know what happened to THOSE Wednesday panties? I suppose that those are the ones that she wore to the party...that would make sense...because they FIT her. And maybe, the killer changed her into the bigger ones, after she probably soiled them. Who knows...while being strangled, or after the hit on the head...she may have lost control of her bowels...and there may have been fecal matter in the original Bloomy (size 6) panties..or whatever size it was that JB wore...I have heard size 6, and I have also heard 8-10. Whatever the case may be...Patsy bought TWO packs in different sizes...it would be interesting to find out whatever happened to JB's Wednesday Panties...the ones in HER size. It is not publicly known what happened to the alleged correct size Wednesday panties, or if they ever existed. If we knew there was a previous missing pair, then it would make sense to debate over the reason for a change in panties.
But for now, we can only debate that there might have been a previous pair based on the incorrect fit of the pair she was wearing.

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


In my opinion only....the panties were changed, and the original Wednesday panties, were taken and destoyed. In the killer's haste, I doubt that he realized just how big they were on her. I believe that the person that put them on her was a man (John Ramsey)...and he had no clue about little girl panty sizes. I believe that Patsy sent John up to JB bedroom to grab some clean panties....so he did...and in his haste and the fact that he was probably freaking out by then....he grab the wrong size...not realizing what he had done. IMO You're adding another piece of evidence that they would need to get rid of to the list. At this point they should have just got rid of the body and saved them selves some time.
If this is staged by the Ramseys, it could have all been done in JBs room, and then her body moved to the basement. So getting a different pair would be no big deal.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
It is not publicly known what happened to the alleged correct size Wednesday panties, or if they ever existed. If we knew there was a previous missing pair, then it would make sense to debate over the reason for a change in panties.
But for now, we can only debate that there might have been a previous pair based on the incorrect fit of the pair she was wearing.

I am looking...I have read it in one of Patsy's interviews...that JB had an identical set of 7...size six underwear....to the size 12's. This is all that I could find for now...I will continue to look though...

"On the shopping spree, which included a visit to Bloomingdales', Patsy paid $24.99 for a size 12/14 set of "bloomies" panties with the days of the week on them for her niece, a girl older than JonBenét, according to a source. The seven-panty set was identical to one JonBenét had -- only hers were a size 6."

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
You're adding another piece of evidence that they would need to get rid of to the list. At this point they should have just got rid of the body and saved them selves some time.
If this is staged by the Ramseys, it could have all been done in JBs room, and then her body moved to the basement. So getting a different pair would be no big deal.

I don't think that it has ever been proven that she WASN'T killed in her own room, and then transfered to the basement. That may have been the case...STILL THOUGH....no matter WHERE she was killed...or taken later....the killer would have still known where to look for her panties. Do you think that he just opened and closed drawers until he finally found what he was looking for? Oh wait...no...you think that she put them on herself...I forgot. If she had a set of her own...in HER size....why would she choose a size 12?

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


I don't think that it has ever been proven that she WASN'T killed in her own room, and then transfered to the basement. That may have been the case...STILL THOUGH....no matter WHERE she was killed...or taken later....the killer would have still known where to look for her panties. Do you think that he just opened and closed drawers until he finally found what he was looking for? Oh wait...no...you think that she put them on herself...I forgot. If she had a set of her own...in HER size....why would she choose a size 12? If she had her own set, she probably would have worn them. So where are they?
So you're basing your argument on something that there is no proof of its existence.
This seems to be a theme with RDI evidence arguements.

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
If she had her own set, she probably would have worn them. So where are they?

That's what I have been asking. I am sure that they have been disposed of....or could possbily be in with her other panties that were taken as evidence. They took ALOT of her panties as evidence...so, I assume, the package of Bloomies, in size 6, were taken also. My reasoning for her having on the size 12 bloomies, is because I think that she was actually wearing HER PAIR...and had worn them to the party....and they were probably soiled, AND HENCE...the reason for the underwear change. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
If she had her own set, she probably would have worn them. So where are they?
So you're basing your argument on something that there is no proof of its existence.
This seems to be a theme with RDI evidence arguements.

As I have stated...I have read in one of Patsy's interviews...and I also gave you a quote from another source, that stated that Patsy bought the size 12 undies for a relative...and JB had an identical set, in size 6. Why is that so hard for you to grasp...that Patsy would buy her relative the same style of panties as JB? Apparently JB was fond of hers, so I guess that Patsy thought that the relative would also like a set. I don't see why that is so hard to believe. I have done that my own self, with different things. I have bought something identical to something that my daughter has, to give to her friends...because my daughter was so fond of it. Whether it be jewelry, or a toy...or whatever. This is NOT unheard of. And as I have said before...the size 6 "Bloomies" panties are probably in a box, along with the size 12 "Bloomies", marked EVIDENCE. IMO

[thewhitewitch1]

I'm with ya, Ames. Patsy did state that she bought JB the same Bloomies as the neice...in at least one interview. In another she "doesn't remember".
I think that the change of underwear was just another sign of a "caring murderer" and had nothing to do with staging. It's interesting that they were so careful to pick the right day of the week but not the right size. It's also pretty bizzare.
Shill does have a point, though. There is no concrete evidence that she was wearing the same Bloomies in her own size that day...or even wearing Bloomies at all.
We have to deduce that the underwear were changed at some point because of the obviously huge difference in size between the two. It's hard to believe that JB would choose to wear something so uncomfortable all day...and that's about all we have to go on. IMO

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


As I have stated...I have read in one of Patsy's interviews...and I also gave you a quote from another source, that stated that Patsy bought the size 12 undies for a relative...and JB had an identical set, in size 6. Why is that so hard for you to grasp...that Patsy would buy her relative the same style of panties as JB? Apparently JB was fond of hers, so I guess that Patsy thought that the relative would also like a set. I don't see why that is so hard to believe. I have done that my own self, with different things. I have bought something identical to something that my daughter has, to give to her friends...because my daughter was so fond of it. Whether it be jewelry, or a toy...or whatever. This is NOT unheard of. And as I have said before...the size 6 "Bloomies" panties are probably in a box, along with the size 12 "Bloomies", marked EVIDENCE. IMO It's not hard to believe. I'm just saying that it's something you believe and is not known as fact.

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
It's interesting that they were so careful to pick the right day of the week but not the right size. It's also pretty bizzare.
IMO That was what I was saying, it's bizzare or doesn't make sense, but the rosebuds do.:rose:

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
It's not hard to believe. I'm just saying that it's something you believe and is not known as fact.

Well, I was just going by what Patsy herself said in ONE of her interviews. She changes her story so much...who knows WHAT to believe that came from her mouth.

[Ames]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1
I'm with ya, Ames. Patsy did state that she bought JB the same Bloomies as the neice...in at least one interview. In another she "doesn't remember".
I think that the change of underwear was just another sign of a "caring murderer" and had nothing to do with staging. It's interesting that they were so careful to pick the right day of the week but not the right size. It's also pretty bizzare.
Shill does have a point, though. There is no concrete evidence that she was wearing the same Bloomies in her own size that day...or even wearing Bloomies at all.
We have to deduce that the underwear were changed at some point because of the obviously huge difference in size between the two. It's hard to believe that JB would choose to wear something so uncomfortable all day...and that's about all we have to go on. IMO

Of course, this is not known as a fact...but, I think that John dressed her in those. You know how guys are (no offense to you dudes out there)....they wouldn't have a clue what size to pick out. John probably thought that those were hers...and then didn't know what to do with them, after he put them on her, and they got contaminated, and THEN he realized they were way to huge. I believe that they were flying blind that night...because they were both freaked out...and nervous...and had the whole adrenalin thing going on. I am sure the last thing on John's mind at that moment, was the size of JB's underwear. IMO

[Zoey]

Originally posted by shill
I don't understand why they needed to say Wednesday. Why did the day have to be correct if they were replacement panties?
It would make sense that they said Wednesday if they were not replacements.
I must have missed the explanation for this reasoning, sorry.

Maybe they needed to say Wednesday to say she died on Wednesday which means she would have had to have been killed prior to midnight for this to have any significance. That is why I think she already had them on; she had put them on herself prior to attending the White's party.

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames
Patsy had said that when she bought the size 12 bloomies, from Bloomingdales....for a relative (her niece?), that she had also bought some for JB in HER size for her to wear. Does anyone know what happened to THOSE Wednesday panties? I suppose that those are the ones that she wore to the party...that would make sense...because they FIT her. And maybe, the killer changed her into the bigger ones, after she probably soiled them. Who knows...while being strangled, or after the hit on the head...she may have lost control of her bowels...and there may have been fecal matter in the original Bloomy (size 6) panties..or whatever size it was that JB wore...I have heard size 6, and I have also heard 8-10. Whatever the case may be...Patsy bought TWO packs in different sizes...it would be interesting to find out whatever happened to JB's Wednesday Panties...the ones in HER size.

Patsy did not say she bought the same panties for JBR. She said she didn't remember if she bought one or two of the sets but she knows she bought a set for her niece. Also there is nothing in the interviews or any documents I have read that there would have been a second set.

2 Q. Which of those two trips did you

3 purchase the Bloomi's?

4 A. The first trip.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

8 Q. Was it your intention, when you

9 purchased those, for those to be for her,

10 not for some third party as a gift?

11 A. I bought some things that were

12 gifts and some things for her. So I

13 don't --

14 Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is

15 your best recollection that the purchase of

16 the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the

17 week, was something that you bought for her,

18 whether it was just I am buying underwear

19 for my kids or these are special, here's a

20 present, that doesn't matter, but it was your

21 intention that she would wear those?

22 A. Well, I think that I bought a

23 package of the -- they came in a package of

24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.

25 I think I bought a package to give to my

0081

1 niece.

2 Q. Which niece was that?

3 A. Jenny Davis.

4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do

5 you remember that they come in kind of a

6 plastic see-through plastic container.

7 A. Right.

8 Q. They are rolled up?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,

11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your

12 niece, and one for JonBenet?

13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or

14 two.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2000ATL-Patsy-Interview-Complete.htm

[Athena]

Originally posted by Ames


Of course, this is not known as a fact...but, I think that John dressed her in those. You know how guys are (no offense to you dudes out there)....they wouldn't have a clue what size to pick out. John probably thought that those were hers...and then didn't know what to do with them, after he put them on her, and they got contaminated, and THEN he realized they were way to huge. I believe that they were flying blind that night...because they were both freaked out...and nervous...and had the whole adrenalin thing going on. I am sure the last thing on John's mind at that moment, was the size of JB's underwear. IMO

There is no evidence that anyone changed her panties from one pair to another. She could have had those same pair on all day.

[MissOtisRegrets]

I think it is likely that only one pair was bought in New York and, then, later, JonBenet decided she wanted to keep them for herself and was allowed to. They were special and part of her New York Christmas experience that year. I believe it is most likely that the person who put these inappropriately-sized panties on JonBenet to wear on Christmas was JonBenet, herself.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2...ew-Complete.htm


MOO

:seeya:

MissO

[shill]

Originally posted by Zoey


Maybe they needed to say Wednesday to say she died on Wednesday which means she would have had to have been killed prior to midnight for this to have any significance. That is why I think she already had them on; she had put them on herself prior to attending the White's party. They needed panties marked Wednesday to figure out when she died? If she was killed at 1am, do you think they would have put on Thursday panties?
I'm looking for a sensible explenation.

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I think it is likely that only one pair was bought in New York and, then, later, JonBenet decided she wanted to keep them for herself and was allowed to. They were special and part of her New York Christmas experience that year. I believe it is most likely that the person who put these inappropriately-sized panties on JonBenet to wear on Christmas was JonBenet, herself.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2...ew-Complete.htm


MOO

:seeya:

MissO

Sorry. I meant package in the above post, not pair. I think it's likely that only one package was bought at Bloomingdale's and that they were bought for JB's cousin and were in her size. JonBenet decided she liked them and ended up keeping them for herself. There would be no need for JB to keep her cousin's, if two packages had been bought.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets


Sorry. I meant package in the above post, not pair. I think it's likely that only one package was bought at Bloomingdale's and that they were bought for JB's cousin and were in her size. JonBenet decided she liked them and ended up keeping them for herself. There would be no need for JB to keep her cousin's, if two packages had been bought.

It is difficult to know when Patsy herself couldn't give a difinitive statement regarding the purchase except they were purchased for a cousin. The transcript shows Patsy being uncertain or unwilling to commit to further detail. It really isn't how many packages were purchased or whether JonBenet had decided to keep them for herself. A decision not most 6 year olds would be making anyway if mom bought them for a cousin. Irregardless they were obviously to big for JonBenet. I think this is way to much thought process, likely or not on the panties. The only part that even would apply as related evidence is was JonBenet wearing these panties or one in her own size when murdered or were they placed on her, unlaundered yet, after the murder by who wiped her down. If after it was a deliberate attempt to clean her up and remove evidence regardless of who did it intruder or parent. It is reasonable to speculate the other pair held more evidence than the pair she was found in. Evidence that would have identified the killer if they in fact existed. She was wiped down to eliminate evidence ...so why is it unreasonable to speculate that her own size of panties are missing?

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by MissOtisRegrets
I think it is likely that only one pair was bought in New York and, then, later, JonBenet decided she wanted to keep them for herself and was allowed to. They were special and part of her New York Christmas experience that year. I believe it is most likely that the person who put these inappropriately-sized panties on JonBenet to wear on Christmas was JonBenet, herself.

5 Q. Was it something that was selected

6 by JonBenet?

7 A. I believe so.

http://www.jonbenetindexguide.com/2...ew-Complete.htm


MOO

:seeya:

MissO

If JB put the underwear on herself, someone had to have helped her choose the right day of the week because she couldn't read. If someone helped her choose them, most likely they would have noticed how huge they were and would have tried to discourage her from wearing them. It seems that that someone would have remembered this as clearly as they remembered her not wanting to wear the same outfit as her mother that night. IMO
Patsy is as vague as usual when it comes to "remembering" if JB put those underwear on herself that day. It looks to me that when it was suggested that she did, Patsy "bit" on it because it explained why she was wearing them. There would be no reason for an "intruder" to take the time and the chance to go find another pair of underwear in her room...let alone open a brand new container and find the right day of the week.
I really don't think JB wore those Bloomies all day. Her dead body was "redressed" with all the care of a parent. IMO

[MissOtisRegrets]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


I really don't think JB wore those Bloomies all day. Her dead body was "redressed" with all the care of a parent. IMO

Whitewitch, JonBenet's dead body could not have been redressed. She both urinated and bled into those panties.

[Athena]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


If JB put the underwear on herself, someone had to have helped her choose the right day of the week because she couldn't read. If someone helped her choose them, most likely they would have noticed how huge they were and would have tried to discourage her from wearing them. It seems that that someone would have remembered this as clearly as they remembered her not wanting to wear the same outfit as her mother that night. IMO
Patsy is as vague as usual when it comes to "remembering" if JB put those underwear on herself that day. It looks to me that when it was suggested that she did, Patsy "bit" on it because it explained why she was wearing them. There would be no reason for an "intruder" to take the time and the chance to go find another pair of underwear in her room...let alone open a brand new container and find the right day of the week.
I really don't think JB wore those Bloomies all day. Her dead body was "redressed" with all the care of a parent. IMO

The panties were color coded and whether she could read or not at age 6 I am sure she recognized the letter "W" whether in print or script. Children learn their ABCs in kindergarten and some earlier than that if they go to pre-school.

There is also NO evidence that her underwear was changed or that she was "re-dressed" and the term re-dressed has been used as meaning pulling down her bottom clothing and pulling them back up after what was done. JMO

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by Athena


The panties were color coded and whether she could read or not at age 6 I am sure she recognized the letter "W" whether in print or script. Children learn their ABCs in kindergarten and some earlier than that if they go to pre-school.

There is also NO evidence that her underwear was changed or that she was "re-dressed" and the term re-dressed has been used as meaning pulling down her bottom clothing and pulling them back up after what was done. JMO

Of course, you are guessing that she knew what color was what day and that she knew what a "W" looked like. Seems like an awful lot of trouble for a kid to go through just to put on a pair of underwear. IMO
The alleged "evidence" that her underwear had been changed is just the fact that she was wearing those huge ones. Really, I don't think it's too farfetched to think that anyone...even a child would want to wear something that didn't fit right and had to be uncomfortable. No, there is no evidence that she wasn't wearing them all day but it just doesn't seem feasible.
I don't understand why the Ramseys didn't just put her to bed wearing what she already had on. If they left the shirt on her, why not just leave the pants on as well?
Who knows. Maybe you're right. Neither of us can prove the other wrong. :shrug:

[shill]

Originally posted by thewhitewitch1


There would be no reason for an "intruder" to take the time and the chance to go find another pair of underwear in her room...let alone open a brand new container and find the right day of the week.
Her dead body was "redressed" with all the care of a parent. IMO There would be no reason for "Patsy" to take the time and the chance to go find another pair of underwear(that you claim Patsy would never put her in because they are to big) in her room...let alone open a brand new container and find the right day of the week.

There is no proof she was redressed. You continue to believe scenerios based on gossip.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
There would be no reason for "Patsy" to take the time and the chance to go find another pair of underwear(that you claim Patsy would never put her in because they are to big) in her room...let alone open a brand new container and find the right day of the week.

There is no proof she was redressed. You continue to believe scenerios based on gossip.

What "gossip", Shill? PR was questioned about the Bloomies for a reason and more than once. Obviously there is something "not right" about them that sent up a red flag to the LE.

[thewhitewitch1]

Does anyone get a real answer to any of the questions asked here? I don't. Just seems like a lot of contradictions to me.
I'd like to know how an 85 lb. 11 year olds underwear can fit a 45 lb. 6 year old without falling down. :confused:

2 Q. Was it something that, the fact

3 that she is wearing these underpants designed

4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and

5 I will give you a minute to think about it

6 because I know it is tough to try to pin

7 down a couple of months of casual

8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any

9 conversations with her concerning the fact

10 that she is wearing underwear that is just

11 too large for her?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it

14 was, if it had caught your attention or came

15 to your attention, do you think you might

16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't

17 fit, put something on that fits, that is

18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,

19 had come to your attention --

20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the

21 package had been opened, we made the

22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and

23 use them because, you know, we weren't going

24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,

25 so.

0086

1 I mean, if you have ever seen

2 these little panties, there is not too much

3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm

4 sure even if they were a little bit big,

5 they were special because we got them up

6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they

7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was

8 fine with me.

9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see

10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?

11 THE WITNESS: No.

12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically

13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?

14 And I am not saying --

15 THE WITNESS: They were just in

16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I

17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all

18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can

19 help herself to whatever is in there.

20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not

21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to

22 Jenny.

23 THE WITNESS: Right.

24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in

25 JonBenet's bathroom?

0087

1 A. Right.

2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm

3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then

4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet

5 express an interest in them; therefore, you

6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --

7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game.

13 Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time,

14 how old was Jenny?

15 A. I don't know. Probably -- I

16 don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but

17 I don't know exactly how old she was.

18 Q. Would these panties, size wise, be

19 more appropriate for -- is she an older

20 girl?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And I assume a larger girl?

23 A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I

24 mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a

25 young woman, but then she was a little girl.

0088

1 Q. How old is she now?

2 A. She is now 15, I believe.

3 Q. So she would have been about 12

4 or somewhere --

5 A. 11.

6 Q. -- 11, 12?

7 A. Yeah.

8 Q. And based on the, I guess,

9 dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about,

10 these would have been a size appropriate for

11 her?

12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

[thewhitewitch1]

And then there's this previous interview (1998). The other was from 2000.

16 THOMAS HANEY: Did JonBenet have

17 panties with the names of each day of the week

18 on it?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

20 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. And did she

21 wear those according to the day of the week or

22 was it just kind of --

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Just whatever.

24 THOMAS HANEY: Did she know, pay

25 much attention to what day of the week it was?

0237

1 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

2 THOMAS HANEY: So whatever would

3 come out of the drawer?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).

[shill]

Well have fun with your panti hunt!

[LindaA]

So, have we ever considered that it might just be a coincidence that JBR had on the Wednesday panties?

[Ames]

Originally posted by Coloradokares



<snipped.

It is reasonable to speculate the other pair held more evidence than the pair she was found in. Evidence that would have identified the killer if they in fact existed. She was wiped down to eliminate evidence ...so why is it unreasonable to speculate that her own size of panties are missing?

I totally agree with you on this. Why would the "intruder" clean her up, and then pull up the original panties (the ones that she wore to bed that night)? They would have had to have had an enormous amount of evidence on them. IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by LindaA
So, have we ever considered that it might just be a coincidence that JBR had on the Wednesday panties?

Are you saying that JB could have just reached in her drawer, and opened up that new package of panties, and by coincidence, grabbed the Wednesday panties??

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Ames


Are you saying that JB could have just reached in her drawer, and opened up that new package of panties, and by coincidence, grabbed the Wednesday panties??

That package was sealed with a cable tie type of thing that would have needed to have been cut off. In order to open the package, someone would have needed to use a pair of scissors or a knife.

And considering this was a package of day of the week undies, the Wednesday pair would have been right in the middle of the lot. Why wouldn't JonBenet just peel off a pair from either end?

The days of the week were written in script as well... most children at age 6 have trouble deciphering script, and we know JB needed Burke to help her read labels on Christmas presents, so I highly doubt she read the days and went for the Weds pair that way.

[LindaA]

What says they were tied up with cable? PR said -- see post above -- " mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game."

This doesn't mention any cable.

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


They would have had to have had an enormous amount of evidence on them. IMO Really? What kind of evidence could possibly be on them?
I assume you're talking about the alleged missing panties, is that correct?

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by LindaA
What says they were tied up with cable? PR said -- see post above -- " mean, I

8 think I bought them with the intention of

9 sending them in a package of Christmas things

10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that

11 together, so I just put them in her, her

12 panty drawer. So they were free game."

This doesn't mention any cable.

There's a photo of what the Bloomie's undies look like in the unopened package at FFJ, complete with the sealing tie that needs to be cut off.

What size were all of the other underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer? Were they size 12/14?

Nope. Not even close.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
Really? What kind of evidence could possibly be on them?
I assume you're talking about the alleged missing panties, is that correct?

More quanity of blood. Saliva possibly semen with or without sperm. Body oils or skin cells from the perpetrator.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


There's a photo of what the Bloomie's undies look like in the unopened package at FFJ, complete with the sealing tie that needs to be cut off.

What size were all of the other underwear in JonBenet's underwear drawer? Were they size 12/14?

Nope. Not even close.

Is this a picture of the actual undies taken from the Ramsey home? If not, it means nothing. How do we know the pkg in JBR's drawer hadn't been opened at least partially?

[LindaA]

Anyone have the url for FFJ or a link to the picture no posted? I don't hang out over there and don't have the correct web address.

[LindaA]

Okay, I poked around and finally found the picture in question. It doesn't answer my question as it is a picture of another package taken several years after the fact. I'd need a picture of the pack taken from the Ramsey household. Yes, IF JBR's undies were packed in exactly the same way (and they do change packaging frequently) and IF that nylon fastener were still in place it would have been impossible for JBR to have opened the package herself. But given the fact that the panties she wore were from the middle of the week and, therefore, the middle of the package, it seems likely that the package had been opened. I'm looking for info that says otherwise.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by LindaA
Anyone have the url for FFJ or a link to the picture no posted? I don't hang out over there and don't have the correct web address.
Hope this helps in your search. FFJ has a lot more than just what your looking for. If you can't find what your looking for by index let me know I'll help you look for your specific info.

[LindaA]

Darn, CK, a mod edited your post. Did you by some chance have a link in there? Your statement sounded as if you did. Thanks for trying to help, anyway.

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares
quote:Originally posted by shill
Really? What kind of evidence could possibly be on them?
I assume you're talking about the alleged missing panties, is that correct?

More quanity of blood. Saliva possibly semen with or without sperm. Body oils or skin cells from the perpetrator. I don't understand how that could be.
The perp pulls down her pants, long johns, and an alleged pair of panties, removes the panties
does what ever he did with her, puts on a new pair of panties and the long johns and pants.
Therefore the panties were removed before she was violated and would be removed from exposure to "Saliva possibly semen with or without sperm. Body oils or skin cells from the perpetrator. And if there was some exposure to the panties from "Saliva possibly semen with or without sperm. Body oils or skin cells from the perpetrator" before this, it would reason that the long johns and pants would have been equally exposed to these.
Unless he took the alleged panties off, put them back on, took them back off and then put the new oversized on, I don't understand how all this evidence you claim could be on them, got there.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
I don't understand how that could be.
The perp pulls down her pants, long johns, and an alleged pair of panties, removes the panties
does what ever he did with her, puts on a new pair of panties and the long johns and pants.
Therefore the panties were removed before she was violated and would be removed from exposure to "Saliva possibly semen with or without sperm. Body oils or skin cells from the perpetrator. And if there was some exposure to the panties from "Saliva possibly semen with or without sperm. Body oils or skin cells from the perpetrator" before this, it would reason that the long johns and pants would have been equally exposed to these.
Unless he took the alleged panties off, put them back on, took them back off and then put the new oversized on, I don't understand how all this evidence you claim could be on them, got there.

Presumption of your scenario playing out exactly as described above you do make a valid point if the alleged panties were totally removed prior to any sexual abuse occuring that could have involved the above. However if the perpetrator removed the panties and they were not simply lowered in some way. Is it possible that fiber evidence or skin cells or some evidence be of concern. I only was trying to think of any potential for valuable evidence that could be gleaned, because it is reasonable to suspect the panties may have been removed and the large pair used in redressing her after wiping her down..... to remove evidence. I wondered if this had not happened because the perpetrator seeing blood and whatever realized he had to wipe her down and change her. Having done so, she still bled a bit etc. I was thinking perhaps the decision to wipe her down came after viewing that potential evidence would be left behind unless she were wiped and changed.

[shill]

So why would the panties be missing?

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
So why would the panties be missing? \

John Mark Karr says he has them.....in a very safe location.....I don't really buy that but .....for now .....who knows where they are?

[shill]

Maybe the Panty Fairy took them.
Did anyone check under JB's pillow to see if the Panty Fairy left any money?

[shill]

Of course John Mark Karr could have them, he's pretty much a fairy.

[Ames]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


That package was sealed with a cable tie type of thing that would have needed to have been cut off. In order to open the package, someone would have needed to use a pair of scissors or a knife.

And considering this was a package of day of the week undies, the Wednesday pair would have been right in the middle of the lot. Why wouldn't JonBenet just peel off a pair from either end?

The days of the week were written in script as well... most children at age 6 have trouble deciphering script, and we know JB needed Burke to help her read labels on Christmas presents, so I highly doubt she read the days and went for the Weds pair that way.

I agree with all of your post. When I wrote my post, I wrote it knowing that the Wednesday panties would have been in the middle of the pack....considering its the middle of the week, and the panties are in order (in the package). There is no way that she could have opened those panties, (with that cable tie)....and since JB couldn't read...how would she have known to grab the panties in the middle...how would she have known that they said Wednesday? I KNOW that I have read somewhere (TWW said she has read it too) that JB had an identical pack of those panties...and loved them (size 6)...and THAT IS WHY Patsy bought some for her relative...she figured that she would love hers as much as JB did. I do not for one second believe that Patsy bought them for JB and that JB loved them so much that she decided to let her keep the size 12's too (she already had her own size (6)....why would she want another pack that was double her size? I do NOT for one second believe that these panties were in JB's drawer either...I think that they were in the box downstairs, with the other gifts, and possibly unwrapped (BUT...an intruder wouldn't have known that those panties were in that box...only a parent would have known that). I believe that JB died in the size 6 Wednesday Panties....they were full of evidence, so they were taken off of her, she was wiped down, and then changed into the size 12 Wednesday Panties, which got some contamination on them also, but not as much as the original panties had. IMO IMO IMO

[Ames]

Originally posted by shill
Of course John Mark Karr could have them, he's pretty much a fairy.

Okay...now THAT'S funny! LOL

[Ames]

Originally posted by Ames

<snipped>
I do not for one second believe that Patsy bought them for JB and that JB loved them so much that she decided to let her keep the size 12's too <snipped>

Didn't make it back in time to edit, guys. What I MEANT to say is that I didn't believe that Patsy bought them for her RELATIVE...and that JB love them so much, that she decided to let her keep the size 12's too. SORRY ABOUT THAT...

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames

I believe that JB died in the size 6 Wednesday Panties....they were full of evidence, so they were taken off of her, she was wiped down, and then changed into the size 12 Wednesday Panties, which got some contamination on them also, but not as much as the original panties had. IMO IMO IMO O.K. CK admitted that she couldn't explain why there would be evidence on the alleged mystery panties, but according to your post you can.

So let's here how IYO these alleged panties became "full of evidence."

[shill]

Originally posted by Ames


What I MEANT to say is that I didn't believe that Patsy bought them for her RELATIVE...and that JB love them so much, that she decided to let her keep the size 12's too. SORRY ABOUT THAT... JB liked her panties big, so her mom spoiled her by letting her keep a duplicate set that were to big to wear.

Maybe Patsy new she was going to kill her in the size 6 pair and would contaminate them with evidence, so she bought another set to match the Wednesday date.
But she didn't notice she had bought the wrong size for the matching pair. Determined to kill JB that night, she went ahead with her plan and the over sized panties.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by shill
JB liked her panties big, so her mom spoiled her by letting her keep a duplicate set that were to big to wear.

Maybe Patsy new she was going to kill her in the size 6 pair and would contaminate them with evidence, so she bought another set to match the Wednesday date.
But she didn't notice she had bought the wrong size for the matching pair. Determined to kill JB that night, she went ahead with her plan and the over sized panties.

How would you possibly know if JonBenet liked her undies big or not? Considering her drawer was full of size 4/6 and size 6/8 undies, I'd say she liked them the size that was meant for a child of her height and weight.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


How would you possibly know if JonBenet liked her undies big or not? Considering her drawer was full of size 4/6 and size 6/8 undies, I'd say she liked them the size that was meant for a child of her height and weight.

I think Shill was being sarcastic.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by LindaA


I think Shill was being sarcastic.

I think he was being sarcASStic.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
O.K. CK admitted that she couldn't explain why there would be evidence on the alleged mystery panties, but according to your post you can.

So let's here how IYO these alleged panties became "full of evidence."

Wait a cotton picking minute. I said if it went down exactly as you say and the panties were totally removed and not placed back on the body.....then probably not a lot of additional evidence. However I said if it went where they were not totally removed ......then would they potentially have alot more evidence.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by LindaA
Darn, CK, a mod edited your post. Did you by some chance have a link in there? Your statement sounded as if you did. Thanks for trying to help, anyway.

Yes I am sorry I didn't realize that posting a link to FFJ would be problematic. Just my humble opinion but if posts are being moderated ....Shills would be a place to start. I am tired of being called and idiot. You could look up FFJ on Google I am sure...... I am rather embarassed that a post I wrote got edited....

[shill]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


However I said if it went where they were not totally removed ......then would they potentially have alot more evidence. They had to be removed enough to violate her and there would be no more evidence on them then the long johns and pants would have, and since they are not in contact with her body at that point, what would get on them.

You people don't even realize what your saying.

"She liked both pairs so her mother bought them"? The only difference in the pairs are size, so therefore JB likes big panties, that is what your claiming whether you realize it or not TWW.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally posted by Coloradokares


Yes I am sorry I didn't realize that posting a link to FFJ would be problematic. Just my humble opinion but if posts are being moderated ....Shills would be a place to start. I am tired of being called and idiot. You could look up FFJ on Google I am sure...... I am rather embarassed that a post I wrote got edited....

I wouldn't worry about it. I do wonder why the mods chose to edit your post with the link to FFJ. I've posted a lot of links to FFJ, and they never get edited...and seriously, if the mods are going to moderate, they should do something about people who can't say anything without being condescending.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally posted by shill
They had to be removed enough to violate her and there would be no more evidence on them then the long johns and pants would have, and since they are not in contact with her body at that point, what would get on them.

You people don't even realize what your saying.

"She liked both pairs so her mother bought them"? The only difference in the pairs are size, so therefore JB likes big panties, that is what your claiming whether you realize it or not TWW.

Why did you quote from someone else and direct this post at me, Shill?
I haven't said anything about the Bloomies for quite a while.

[LindaA]

Originally posted by nuisanceposter


<snip>...and seriously, if the mods are going to moderate, they should do something about people who can't say anything without being condescending.

I couldn't possibly agree more. And the RDIs would be the first to be edited -- except for Shill.

[Coloradokares]

Originally posted by shill
They had to be removed enough to violate her and there would be no more evidence on them then the long johns and pants would have, and since they are not in contact with her body at that point, what would get on them.

You people don't even realize what your saying.

"She liked both pairs so her mother bought them"? The only difference in the pairs are size, so therefore JB likes big panties, that is what your claiming whether you realize it or not TWW.

Apparently its you who does not realize what we are saying. I am saying if the violation took place exactly as you claim. Her panties being completely removed and not put back on. Yes your right, not a lot of evidence would be found if we found those panties. However if they were slipped down enough to violate her. Knees ankles whatever. My understanding she was not violated in full by an adult male penis. Then those panties following the violation were pulled back up into position. Then the perp realizing for instance that a good deal of blood and other fluid was seeping out on to the undies....would it not be as plausible that at that juncture the perp found something to wipe her down with and totally removed the original underwear . My scenario vs yours be the case....... I'd sure like for the proper authorities to gain possession of the original underwear, there could potentially be alot more evidence on that that pair.

Shill you need to know that all you have is your own theory that the underware were totally removed prior to digital and paintbrush handle violation. You couldn't possibly know your theory on this is absolute, anymore than I know mine is. I have no way of knowing for fact as I was not there....neither were you. Your theory is as speculative as any presented.

[andU]

Originally posted by Ames


I totally agree with you on this. Why would the "intruder" clean her up, and then pull up the original panties (the ones that she wore to bed that night)? They would have had to have had an enormous amount of evidence on them. IMO

My 2 cents worth: When my girls were young, I taught them to take off their panties before dressing for bed, especially if they wore jammies. It was ok for them to wear panites if the had on a gown, though.

[LindaA]

So, what became of these blood and fluid soaked panties?