LI-Mom
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 1
When those style of pants are not on a body they are very small/tight. Not much bigger than a pair of tights. They expand when you put them on.
Maybe "tight" (slim) vs baggy?
IMO "tight" was used as equivalent to yoga pants, stretch pants, or some such. Others have surmised this as well.
It's pretty easy to distinguish visually between slim-fitting pants like leggings, for example, and wider / looser types of pants:
View attachment 61970View attachment 61971
I've been thinking about this as well (new to this thread but not WS). IMO, the pants may be the type that "stretch" when put on and thus appear small/smaller without a body in them. From what I've seen in photos, that could apply to Hannah's pants, I believe. Or maybe the pants are just narrow at the calf/ankle and the officer misspoke?
I think what a few of us have a problem with is the use of "tight" in this situation. The pants were not on a body and easy to determine tightness or looseness. A LEO is kind of trained to listen to descriptions so I'd imagine they are better able than most to give a description. But that being said, if I saw Hannah's pants on the ground I would describe them as dark, but as to fit, I wouldn't say tight.
I saw what appeared to be dark:
Stretchy pants
Narrow ankle pants
Women's pants
Yoga pants
Sweat pants
Jeans
So this bothers some of us. Some here thought that officer's interview might have been scripted to get a response from JM, using "tight" makes it look more like a script than not, however I don't think it was scripted and that makes it a curious choice of words.