The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Tadpole12]

Hiya Agatha_C.

IDI wise, (I'm really reaching on this one) but perhaps the larger size was purchased so JBR could wear underwear over her pull ups. ...

 

[Agatha_C]

Hiya Agatha_C.

IDI wise, (I'm really reaching on this one) but perhaps the larger size was purchased so JBR could wear underwear over her pull ups. ...

I can almost see that, then............. I remember that only one pair was found and those were on JBR sans the pull-up... I just cannot make sense of that and like you, I have tried...lol... Remember, I was once IDI.

 

[KariKae]

Okay, I was curious this weekend. I have two daughters. One wears a size 6 panties and the other wears a 12/14. I had the younger daughter try on her older sister's panties. They fell off her hips. Ignoring the other inconsistencies, there's no way JB put these on herself unless she was joking around.

Of course, larger panties make it easier to re-dress a body.

 

[otg]

Hiya Agatha_C.

IDI wise, (I'm really reaching on this one) but perhaps the larger size was purchased so JBR could wear underwear over her pull ups. ...

Hey, Tad.

Had that been the purpose, why would Patsy have not said that in her interview when questioned? It would have put the entire issue to rest (and we'd be talking about something else). Instead, she tried to downplay the difference by exaggerating the size she claimed to usually buy for JonBenet and trivializing the difference in size between JonBenet and her cousin (who was actually close to twice JB's size). Not once did she say that the purpose was to fit over the diapers she sometimes wore and which investigators knew about. Had she been just a little quicker to think, maybe Patsy would have used that. But apparently it didn't occur to her, nor was it the reason.

I know you're offering a possible explanation and not arguing the point for Ramsey innocence, but that one just doesn't fly -- or, the reach is too far for the grasp.
.

 

[Agatha_C]

Okay, I was curious this weekend. I have two daughters. One wears a size 6 panties and the other wears a 12/14. I had the younger daughter try on her older sister's panties. They fell off her hips. Ignoring the other inconsistencies, there's no way JB put these on herself unless she was joking around.

Of course, larger panties make it easier to re-dress a body.

I did that same test (LOL) did you laugh as hard as I did?????? I laughed until I cried... :floorlaugh:

 

[UKGuy]

I have no reason to doubt the interviewer...saying those panties found on her were 12/14. Patsy admitted to buying that size....it's not like she denied it....maybe then I could see where Holdon and Murri are coming from...as far as the panties go. Frankly I think that they just look for things to sidetrack us off of the main focus of this board. Like you said...is doesn't matter the size (even though they were very large on her..), just the fact that Patsy lied about them....and the WHOLE pack was missing...and then years later, the Rams turned them over...missing a pair....the same pair that JB was found wearing when her body was found. (I think that they turned them over, because they knew that it made them look more suspicious if they didn't.)

Ames,

Thats it, someone must have realized they could argue the pack versus the individual pairs being deposited into her drawer.

I wonder if the BPD ever analysed what was handed in against what was found on her? If this could be demonstrated to be a mismatch then in court it would look pretty bad.

The bottom line is that Patsy lied. Not unless IDI want to argue for an intruder with a fetish for size-12 underwear!


.

 

[Ames]

Ames,

Thats it, someone must have realized they could argue the pack versus the individual pairs being deposited into her drawer.

I wonder if the BPD ever analysed what was handed in against what was found on her? If this could be demonstrated to be a mismatch then in court it would look pretty bad.

The bottom line is that Patsy lied. Not unless IDI want to argue for an intruder with a fetish for size-12 underwear!


.

I can assure you that IDI's would already be arguing that, if not for the fact that the remaining pairs in the pack, were turned in years later....BY the RAMSEY's....not some "intruder". (Kinda hard to say..."Well, the intruder took the remaining pairs with him, as souveniers....like he "took" the rest of the tape, etc. when you have the Ramsey's themselves....turning the pack over to police.)

 

[SunnieRN]

Hiya Agatha_C.

IDI wise, (I'm really reaching on this one) but perhaps the larger size was purchased so JBR could wear underwear over her pull ups. ...

Tadpole, this issue has also been discussed. I am not sure if you are familiar with pull-ups, but they are not huge or as bulky as a diaper. There would be no way Patsy would buy underwear 4 sizes too large, to fit over pull-ups. It is not only not necessary, but would not do the job properly. Patsy stated JonBenet wore underwear that was larger than those found in JonBenets drawer, the undies she bought Jenny (by her own admission), were supposedly in JonBenets undie drawer, but were never found by BPD, who confiscated 15 pair of size 4 and 6 sized undies in her drawer. The R's years later, turned in the rest of the bloomies undies. They were not in JonBenets drawer. Why did Patsy lie about it? This is the true question.

 

[MurriFlower]

Ok, so I gather that no one has been able to find a Bloomingdales underwear size chart for girls??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for the size of the panties??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for Bloomingdales changing their sizes for kids apparel since 1996??

So, as there is no girls size 12-14 in Bloomingdales own clothing lines, therefore the panties could have only been size 12, which is designed for a 9-10 year old child. If they were Large (covers size 10-12) and are recommended for girls aged 8-10.

I think we can assume that (again), what was said in an interview by an investigator when questioning his 'suspect', was incorrect.

 

[claudicici]

I have tried to give PR the benefit of the doubt on this one.I tried to imagine if she was innocent could there possibly be an explanation of the lie?I can't think of one.
Is it possible that she was just a bad mother? supposedly Jon Benet did not take a bath that day,supposedly Patsy had no idea what underwear she was wearing and thinks she may have worn a pair that only could stay up with the help of the pants on top....but in that case considering JonBenet 's wiping skills those panties would have been stained.

 

[claudicici]

Ok, so I gather that no one has been able to find a Bloomingdales underwear size chart for girls??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for the size of the panties??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for Bloomingdales changing their sizes for kids apparel since 1996??

So, as there is no girls size 12-14 in Bloomingdales own clothing lines, therefore the panties could have only been size 12, which is designed for a 9-10 year old child. If they were Large (covers size 10-12) and are recommended for girls aged 8-10.

I think we can assume that (again), what was said in an interview by an investigator when questioning his 'suspect', was incorrect.

you're not reading what anyone is saying and you're not making sense.why would Patsy admit to the investigators lie if he lied?
No there's not a current chart for children's underwear on the Bloomingdale site nor are they selling any children underwear there right now.
Those are not underwear sizes.If they are now the same size as apparel then you need to believe all of us that had small children in the 90's.Clothes were sized different from panties.My 6 year old daughter wore size 6 panties but 8-10 in clothing.

 

[Ames]

Ok, so I gather that no one has been able to find a Bloomingdales underwear size chart for girls??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for the size of the panties??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for Bloomingdales changing their sizes for kids apparel since 1996??

So, as there is no girls size 12-14 in Bloomingdales own clothing lines, therefore the panties could have only been size 12, which is designed for a 9-10 year old child. If they were Large (covers size 10-12) and are recommended for girls aged 8-10.

I think we can assume that (again), what was said in an interview by an investigator when questioning his 'suspect', was incorrect.

Whatever! If he meant 12's...he would have said 12....but, he said 12/14. Which is exactly the way that panties run...here in the US. How would a MAN have known that, if it hadn't of been a fact? KoldKase..the one with the too big Bloomies on a child model, as her AVATAR... actually BOUGHT a pair of 12/14's...so that is the way that they come. Why don't you ask HER....she post's over here. You are becoming just a little bit too much like Holdon...asking for source after source...and when given one, or two....it's never good enough. The Bloomies were size 12/14...they were way too big....drop it. What matters is that Patsy lied about where they were kept....and the size that she normally would buy for JB. THAT is the main focus here...of course, I know that you and Hold try to veer us RDI's off course, or off track...to take the focus off of facts, and onto your ridiculous IDI theory...for which there is NO proof.

 

[claudicici]

I was thinking the same thing,murry and hotyh are morphing!
You know I can understand the frustration of being the minority on a board and I am glad there are some here with different opinions and it would be interesting if they could come up with anything at all aside from the DNA to get a good discussion going,but this is really ridiculous.

 

[Agatha_C]

I for one, am not going to play this size game anymore. Its a tactical maneuver to keep us away from the lies told about the panties and the true reason for their importance. Until IDI can show me an authentic source that said the panties were not too big, I'll stick with what their DA said and wrote up... The panties were too big. Bloomingdales did not commit this crime nor did they lie, so arguing the sizing chart is just plain silly. To argue this is to imply that those of us with children dont know what we are talking about, or how too buy underwear for our children. Poor kids running around in panties that fit, dont we know the crotch is supposed to drag the ground and work like a mudd flap? Thanks for showing me the error of my ways IDI, I'm cleaning out my childrens underwear drawers and buying all new panties three to four sizes to big. The ridicule my poor babies must be suffering, wearing panties that fit...

 

[MurriFlower]

I was thinking the same thing,murry and hotyh are morphing!
You know I can understand the frustration of being the minority on a board and I am glad there are some here with different opinions and it would be interesting if they could come up with anything at all aside from the DNA to get a good discussion going,but this is really ridiculous.

Well, I think it isn't accurate to blame IDI for this ridiculous panty size discussion. I was happy to drop the discussion after lengthy debate on a previous thread. It was cynic who re-ignited it with a new thread, and RDI continued post about the subject on here, so I assumed you were all very keen to keep discussing it.

As no one can refute the evidence I have given you (Bloomingdales childrens clothing size chart) with anything remotely backing up the size 12-14 (except for an interview) I think it is RDI who is unable to source their argument.

So if you all want to drop the panty size discussion and go on with something else, I'm happy to oblige.

PS. You RDI all tend to morph in my mind also, that's why I sometimes get confused as to who posted what theory.

 

[SunnieRN]

Ok, so I gather that no one has been able to find a Bloomingdales underwear size chart for girls??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for the size of the panties??

No one has been able to find a credible mainstream media source for Bloomingdales changing their sizes for kids apparel since 1996??

So, as there is no girls size 12-14 in Bloomingdales own clothing lines, therefore the panties could have only been size 12, which is designed for a 9-10 year old child. If they were Large (covers size 10-12) and are recommended for girls aged 8-10.

I think we can assume that (again), what was said in an interview by an investigator when questioning his 'suspect', was incorrect.

Well, I think it isn't accurate to blame IDI for this ridiculous panty size discussion. I was happy to drop the discussion after lengthy debate on a previous thread. It was cynic who re-ignited it with a new thread, and RDI continued post about the subject on here, so I assumed you were all very keen to keep discussing it.

As no one can refute the evidence I have given you (Bloomingdales childrens clothing size chart) with anything remotely backing up the size 12-14 (except for an interview) I think it is RDI who is unable to source their argument.

So if you all want to drop the panty size discussion and go on with something else, I'm happy to oblige.

PS. You RDI all tend to morph in my mind also, that's why I sometimes get confused as to who posted what theory.

So, since your only concern is:

whether they were size 12, or 12/14, which Patsy didn't deny,

And, since you are now willing to move on,:

Let's discuss the real issue. What caused Patsy to lie, in the first place? Wouldn't it have been smarter to say nothing at all, instead of the ever morphing stories she told?

 

[Agatha_C]

So, since your only concern is:

whether they were size 12, or 12/14, which Patsy didn't deny,

And, since you are now willing to move on,:

Let's discuss the real issue. What caused Patsy to lie, in the first place? Wouldn't it have been smarter to say nothing at all, instead of the ever morphing stories she told?

Sunni, thats the stuff I want to know. Why lie when it would have been easier to just say nothing at all? What was PR thinking? Was she afraid they knew about the larger Bloomi's she had bought in NY? Or did she forget they had removed them and thought LE had found the package?

I need to go back and see when in the interview she was asked about them, was it before or after she saw the nightgown that had been left behind (as I dont think it was placed there. I think they forgot to remove it in the clean up/re staging)

Was PR afraid that it placed her in the WC, being she was the one too buy and wrap said panties?

Why the lie?????????

 

[MurriFlower]

Sunni, thats the stuff I want to know. Why lie when it would have been easier to just say nothing at all? What was PR thinking? Was she afraid they knew about the larger Bloomi's she had bought in NY? Or did she forget they had removed them and thought LE had found the package?

I need to go back and see when in the interview she was asked about them, was it before or after she saw the nightgown that had been left behind (as I dont think it was placed there. I think they forgot to remove it in the clean up/re staging)

Was PR afraid that it placed her in the WC, being she was the one too buy and wrap said panties?

Why the lie?????????

IF it was size 12 (and we have nothing but this interview to indicate that they were). We have no evidence that size 12-14 even existed in Bloomingdales girls panty lines. IF size 12 fits a 9-10 year old, why would he make an issue of it at al?. Was there really a pair of size 12 panties found on JBR. If so, why is there no credible mainstream media source for this? Why was the panty size not noted in the autopsy or commented on by the LE present at autopsy?

Why did LE lie?

 

[Agatha_C]

IF it was size 12 (and we have nothing but this interview to indicate that they were). We have no evidence that size 12-14 even existed in Bloomingdales girls panty lines. IF size 12 fits a 9-10 year old, why would he make an issue of it at al?. Was there really a pair of size 12 panties found on JBR. If so, why is there no credible mainstream media source for this? Why was the panty size not noted in the autopsy or commented on by the LE present at autopsy?

Why did LE lie?

Murri, with all due respect, I wont be arguing the size of the panties anymore. I read that they were to large, stated as fact, not once but at least twice in the arrest affidavit for JMK. Just knowing that the panties were indeed/fact on a legal document is all I need to know. I'm standing firm in my position. I wish you loads of luck on your argument with the others. You are going to need it and a miracle to prove fact wrong.....

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri, with all due respect, I wont be arguing the size of the panties anymore. I read that they were to large, stated as fact, not once but at least twice in the arrest affidavit for JMK. Just knowing that the panties were indeed/fact on a legal document is all I need to know. I'm standing firm in my position. I wish you loads of luck on your argument with the others. You are going to need it and a miracle to prove fact wrong.....

Before we can establish if PR lied, we first have to established if LE lied about the size. Get it??