The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[Annapurna]

Simply denying that the panties were far too big to wear comfortably (even in leggings) is not going to change that fact. As a girl, wearing panties like that would provide zero coverage. In my experience this is extremely uncomfortable in pants, especially if they have a seam in the middle of the crotch, which her velvet jeans did. I know this because I had a pair from the gap in the late 90's as well. The seam rubs against the most delicate and sensitive parts of the female anatomy.

PR states that there was some disagreement about what outfit JB wanted to wear. She then says JB wanted to wear her outfit from the Gap. Therefore we can assume that PR was involved with JB getting dressed for the party, most likely helped her get dressed. PR would not have wanted her daughter to wear those uncomfortable panties. No matter what pants she wore they would bunch up, ride up or slip down. She was going over to play with her friend. PR would have wanted her to be wearing clothes she could properly move in. She would not have wanted an uncomfortable and complaining JB to deal with at the party.
For these reasons (and more, I can keep going) I feel confident that it is a fact these panties did not fit. The interviewers make it clear that it is a fact that the panties were "just too large for her."

So to continue: the panties were too large. They would have been very uncomfortable. It is safe to assume that a little girl would not have wanted to wear something uncomfortable. To continue this assumption, if JB did not put them on herself, and PR did not put them on her while changing her (which she did not say she did), then the panties were changed later in the night.

As PR admitted that the panties were bought by her and in the home, then we know they were not brought by an intruder. Since she was changed after she was assaulted (due to the amount of blood found and the blood wiped) then we know it had to have been done by someone with knowledge that she was assaulted and had a desire to clean it up. Since an intruder did not bring the panties, this person must have been a family member. An intruder would not know to look through presents to find panties.

 

[Fides]

Simply denying that the panties were far too big to wear comfortably (even in leggings) is not going to change that fact. As a girl, wearing panties like that would provide zero coverage. In my experience this is extremely uncomfortable in pants, especially if they have a seam in the middle of the crotch, which her velvet jeans did. I know this because I had a pair from the gap in the late 90's as well. The seam rubs against the most delicate and sensitive parts of the female anatomy.

PR states that there was some disagreement about what outfit JB wanted to wear. She then says JB wanted to wear her outfit from the Gap. Therefore we can assume that PR was involved with JB getting dressed for the party, most likely helped her get dressed. PR would not have wanted her daughter to wear those uncomfortable panties. No matter what pants she wore they would bunch up, ride up or slip down. She was going over to play with her friend. PR would have wanted her to be wearing clothes she could properly move in. She would not have wanted an uncomfortable and complaining JB to deal with at the party.
For these reasons (and more, I can keep going) I feel confident that it is a fact these panties did not fit. The interviewers make it clear that it is a fact that the panties were "just too large for her."

So to continue: the panties were too large. They would have been very uncomfortable. It is safe to assume that a little girl would not have wanted to wear something uncomfortable. To continue this assumption, if JB did not put them on herself, and PR did not put them on her while changing her (which she did not say she did), then the panties were changed later in the night.

As PR admitted that the panties were bought by her and in the home, then we know they were not brought by an intruder. Since she was changed after she was assaulted (due to the amount of blood found and the blood wiped) then we know it had to have been done by someone with knowledge that she was assaulted and had a desire to clean it up. Since an intruder did not bring the panties, this person must have been a family member. An intruder would not know to look through presents to find panties.

She seemed like a child who lately had wanted to look more "cool" and not wear outfits that matched her mother. Bunched up panties under black velvet pants would look like a diaper - i.e. not cool. Not proof of anything, but I agree with your above hypothesis and conclusion.

 

[CorallaroC]

RBBM
Thanks, andreww.
It always has seemed that the timing of certain events will tell a story more completely. Omitting the arrival and departure of LE and guests, here’s a quick review regarding the timing from the 26th to the 28th. Maybe it will reveal more completely the Lack-of-Oversize-Bloomies caper.

-Morning of December 26 - Police searched for the entrance point of the Kidnapper and any other clues of his presence in the home.
-Afternoon of December 26 – Coroner called. Re-entry of BPD and FBI Agent. Home closed to everyone except LE.
-Afternoon of December 26 – JR’s lawyers attempt to reach FW. (Just tossing that detail in, though there's no Bloomies relevance.)
-Evening of December 26 – Coroner arrives. Examines body for 10 minutes; leaves.

-Evening of December 26 – Warrants secured to remove items from the home. Crime scene technicians would not have known to look for oversize panties as only the autopsy revealed this point. 7 pairs of girl’s underwear removed.
-Morning of December 27 – Coroner performs autopsy. Oversize 12 panties noted, as are injuries to JB’s genital area. A colposcope is brought in, in order to take photos of her vaginal vault.
-Afternoon of December 27 – Crime scene technicians remove another 10 pairs of girl’s underwear.

-Morning/afternoon December 28 – PP, sister to PR, performs her gigantic raid on items from the home.

Questfortrue, hi Your post is very excellent, thank you for this perspective of TIME and timing of search warrants and items removed as evidence. It is easy to draw a logical conclusion from sequence of events.

The cops went back and searched for other underpants once they realized the importance to the crime. At least we have some info to understand that to be true. Thanks. Your post is most helpful.

 

[InstantProof]

I have a 6 yr old grand daughter and have raised several little girls. If they thought some panties were from some fancy place and they wanted to wear them they would. They wouldnt care if they were too big etc, just like high heels, dresses or anything else, if the leggings or pants kept them up they would be fine with that.

I get what you are saying, but she had on the correct Wednesday pair, which would have been in the middle of the package, and even if she could read it seems like an odd thing for JB to care about if she doesn't even care if they fit.

 

[InstantProof]

As for why the Rs would hide the underwear (which I already said I think may have been un-hidden in the basement), they could've wanted to be rid of anything that had obviously been part of the crime. Since there was blood on the underwear, they thought they needed to stash the remaining underwear somewhere until police asked for them, just so that they could look like they're cooperating when they handed over the underwear (somewhat cooperative, at least).

Just speculating, obviously, but maybe the pair she had on originally was rolled up and put in place of the Wednesday pair in the package, "and hence" a good reason to hide it.

 

[TeaTime]

I just sarted reading this thread and am trying to get through all the discussion about the actual size of the panties; whether LE lied to PR when asking her about them; whether Bloomingdale's has hyphenated sizes, etc., etc. So, after looking on the Bloomingdale's website here is what is advertised: Size XS (2-3); Size S (4-6); Size M (8-10) and Size L(12-14). So, it is likely the panties are marked accordingly. End of discussion?

 

[TeaTime]

Reading through more pages, I re-read JR's interview or at least the section about undressing JBR that night. Hmmmm. JR says he thinks he took off her shoes and coat but also thinks he would have noticed if she wasn't wearing panties that night. Really? Just by taking off her coat and shoes he can determine if she is wearing panties or not?

He slipped up. This tells me he undressed her further than he admits.

 

[Teresa]

Simply denying that the panties were far too big to wear comfortably (even in leggings) is not going to change that fact. As a girl, wearing panties like that would provide zero coverage. In my experience this is extremely uncomfortable in pants, especially if they have a seam in the middle of the crotch, which her velvet jeans did. I know this because I had a pair from the gap in the late 90's as well. The seam rubs against the most delicate and sensitive parts of the female anatomy.

PR states that there was some disagreement about what outfit JB wanted to wear. She then says JB wanted to wear her outfit from the Gap. Therefore we can assume that PR was involved with JB getting dressed for the party, most likely helped her get dressed. PR would not have wanted her daughter to wear those uncomfortable panties. No matter what pants she wore they would bunch up, ride up or slip down. She was going over to play with her friend. PR would have wanted her to be wearing clothes she could properly move in. She would not have wanted an uncomfortable and complaining JB to deal with at the party.
For these reasons (and more, I can keep going) I feel confident that it is a fact these panties did not fit. The interviewers make it clear that it is a fact that the panties were "just too large for her."

So to continue: the panties were too large. They would have been very uncomfortable. It is safe to assume that a little girl would not have wanted to wear something uncomfortable. To continue this assumption, if JB did not put them on herself, and PR did not put them on her while changing her (which she did not say she did), then the panties were changed later in the night.

As PR admitted that the panties were bought by her and in the home, then we know they were not brought by an intruder. Since she was changed after she was assaulted (due to the amount of blood found and the blood wiped) then we know it had to have been done by someone with knowledge that she was assaulted and had a desire to clean it up. Since an intruder did not bring the panties, this person must have been a family member. An intruder would not know to look through presents to find panties.

A very clear and well worded post. A+

 

[Ellie9]

Just speculating, obviously, but maybe the pair she had on originally was rolled up and put in place of the Wednesday pair in the package, "and hence" a good reason to hide it.

The stuff that was never found was all things that burn well and easily. Ransom practice note, possible rope (if not all used up), tape (if not all used), and of course the original panties + size 12 panties package.

 

[UKGuy]

Simply denying that the panties were far too big to wear comfortably (even in leggings) is not going to change that fact. As a girl, wearing panties like that would provide zero coverage. In my experience this is extremely uncomfortable in pants, especially if they have a seam in the middle of the crotch, which her velvet jeans did. I know this because I had a pair from the gap in the late 90's as well. The seam rubs against the most delicate and sensitive parts of the female anatomy.

PR states that there was some disagreement about what outfit JB wanted to wear. She then says JB wanted to wear her outfit from the Gap. Therefore we can assume that PR was involved with JB getting dressed for the party, most likely helped her get dressed. PR would not have wanted her daughter to wear those uncomfortable panties. No matter what pants she wore they would bunch up, ride up or slip down. She was going over to play with her friend. PR would have wanted her to be wearing clothes she could properly move in. She would not have wanted an uncomfortable and complaining JB to deal with at the party.
For these reasons (and more, I can keep going) I feel confident that it is a fact these panties did not fit. The interviewers make it clear that it is a fact that the panties were "just too large for her."

So to continue: the panties were too large. They would have been very uncomfortable. It is safe to assume that a little girl would not have wanted to wear something uncomfortable. To continue this assumption, if JB did not put them on herself, and PR did not put them on her while changing her (which she did not say she did), then the panties were changed later in the night.

As PR admitted that the panties were bought by her and in the home, then we know they were not brought by an intruder. Since she was changed after she was assaulted (due to the amount of blood found and the blood wiped) then we know it had to have been done by someone with knowledge that she was assaulted and had a desire to clean it up. Since an intruder did not bring the panties, this person must have been a family member. An intruder would not know to look through presents to find panties.

Annapurna,

As PR admitted that the panties were bought by her and in the home, then we know they were not brought by an intruder. Since she was changed after she was assaulted (due to the amount of blood found and the blood wiped) then we know it had to have been done by someone with knowledge that she was assaulted and had a desire to clean it up. Since an intruder did not bring the panties, this person must have been a family member. An intruder would not know to look through presents to find panties.

BBM: Coroner Meyer confirms this view
1996-12-27: Search Warrant 755 15 Street, Boulder, Colorado

Det. Arndt informed Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that he observed red stains in the crotch area of the panties that the child was wearing at the time that the child's body was subjected to the external visual examination. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that the red stain appeared to be consistent with blood. Det. Arndt further informed the Affiant that Dr. Meyer stated to her that after examining the panties (as described above), he observed the exterior pubic area of the child's body located next to the areas of the panties containing the red stains and found no visible reddish stains in that area. Dr. Meyer stated to Det. Arndt that his opinion is that the evidence observed is consistent with the child's pubic area having been wiped by a cloth.

If the case was PDI then I would have expected PR to have redressed JonBenet in her normal size of underwear or at least have had more consistent story regarding the size-12's.

Similar applies to the pineapple snack if Patsy had been aware of it then she could have factored it into the Ramsey' version of events, i.e. we arrived home, JonBenet had some pineapple and Burke had some tea, then we all went to bed so we could rise early for the flight.

In this case its Patsy who does not know everything and one or both of the remaining R's knew more, quite possibly one individual R who never told Patsy everything that took place?


.

 

[Annapurna]

Annapurna,



<snip>

If the case was PDI then I would have expected PR to have redressed JonBenet in her normal size of underwear or at least have had more consistent story regarding the size-12's.

Similar applies to the pineapple snack if Patsy had been aware of it then she could have factored it into the Ramsey' version of events, i.e. we arrived home, JonBenet had some pineapple and Burke had some tea, then we all went to bed so we could rise early for the flight.

In this case its Patsy who does not know everything and one or both of the remaining R's knew more, quite possibly one individual R who never told Patsy everything that took place?


.

UKguy, what you say about Patsy is what I believe as well. She would have probably just gotten a clean pair from upstairs.

For this and several other reasons I strongly believe JR was involved in the staging. I personally suspect that he was involved in the "dirty work". The hard part of the staging. I think PR worked on the note, and JR staged the body. A man would not realize how strange the big panties would look. Boys can and do wear boxers much too large sometimes. A girl on the other hand would be very uncomfortable and unlikely to ever do that by choice.

Just total speculation, but if the cord was staging (which is debateable, I'm not sure I believe a parent would go that far) then JR may have tasked PR with finding and bringing it to him. Likely among her art supplies. Ditto the tape. I also suspect that the reason she was assaulted with the paintbrush is someone trying to explain why her hymen was broken. This was likely done due to the blood found on her, which could have been caused by an earlier, digital assault.

I suspect the size 6 panties, the cloth she was cleaned with, and the practice notes were thrown into the furnace which is right outside the WC. I think the cord was used in its entirety due to the strange length between the wrists. The tape was probably ripped off of something, which is why it fell off when he picked up her body (I don't think he ripped it off).

 

[UKGuy]

UKguy, what you say about Patsy is what I believe as well. She would have probably just gotten a clean pair from upstairs.

For this and several other reasons I strongly believe JR was involved in the staging. I personally suspect that he was involved in the "dirty work". The hard part of the staging. I think PR worked on the note, and JR staged the body. A man would not realize how strange the big panties would look. Boys can and do wear boxers much too large sometimes. A girl on the other hand would be very uncomfortable and unlikely to ever do that by choice.

Just total speculation, but if the cord was staging (which is debateable, I'm not sure I believe a parent would go that far) then JR may have tasked PR with finding and bringing it to him. Likely among her art supplies. Ditto the tape. I also suspect that the reason she was assaulted with the paintbrush is someone trying to explain why her hymen was broken. This was likely done due to the blood found on her, which could have been caused by an earlier, digital assault.

I suspect the size 6 panties, the cloth she was cleaned with, and the practice notes were thrown into the furnace which is right outside the WC. I think the cord was used in its entirety due to the strange length between the wrists. The tape was probably ripped off of something, which is why it fell off when he picked up her body (I don't think he ripped it off).

Annapurna,
I think there is no doubt JR was involved in the staging, otherwise that leaves BR and PR to construct some staged crime-scene?

If by cord you mean the ligature, I have always thought it represented staging albeit it asphyxiated JonBenet, but Kolar says it was not staging and was central to whatever was going on the killers mind.

Since I'm not privy to same evidence that Kolar was, I'm going to assume he knows something we do not, and cannot divulge it?

To me the wrist restraints and tape appear to be postmortem additions, slightly underlining the staged aspect to the wine-cellar crime-scene.

I also suspect that the reason she was assaulted with the paintbrush is someone trying to explain why her hymen was broken. This was likely done due to the blood found on her, which could have been caused by an earlier, digital assault.

You might be correct here or JonBenet's killer was using the paintbrush handle in some kind of sociopathic sexual ritual which was later incorporated as part of the ligature and the bloodstained end removed, or was it left inside JonBenet?

The killer does not need a paintbrush handle to asphyxiate JonBenet, plain hands or application of the ligature is sufficient, in fact adding the paintbrush handle appears to make, in mechanical terms, the whole process more complicated?

If Kolar is correct and the majority of JonBenet's injuries were inflicted by her killer, including the ligature *advertiser censored* paintbrush handle, then we seem to have a sadistic motive here?


.

 

[Anti-K]

If it tells you nothing that you don't already know, then why would you keep suggesting that any human being would actually put those on and decide to wear them? That is just ridiculous.

Yes, and sometimes people do ridiculous things, especially, children.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

But just like so many other things in this case it just happened to happen on THAT night. And just coincidentally the package goes missing too!

In Pasty's interview she claims to have bought the panties as a gift for Jenny Davis. She never says why she changed her mind about giving them. She never says "We got her this instead". She never says whether something was wrapped and she never says if something was sent. Its always a big f-ing mystery with these people and there is never an answer that completely explains a question. She knew damned well what LE was asking "Just explain what happened to them!". A normal person would say something like this;

"we bought the panties in NY as part of an Xmas gift for JD. A few weeks after we got home I saw a beautiful outfit that suited JD to a tee, so we bought her that instead. I wrapped that up and shipped it to Jenny on the 10th. I took the panties and put them in my drawer thinking that in a couple of years JB would be big enough to wear them and that was the last place I saw them. JB must have snuck in and found them and opened them prematurely. Everything was boxed up and shipped to Atlanta, so that is the last place I saw them."

Yes, that is how a normal innocent person would answer that question. I find it offensive to think that some people here actually think she was being honest, or helpful in any way.

Ya right, she wore those panties :tantrum:

Some RDI have recently expressed the opinion that the package might have been overlooked by BPD. Maybe because it was in the basement. Or, whatever. I think BPD overlooked them because they weren’t looking for them. They were looking for panties that had been worn.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Whether or not JBR wore them regularly or not doesn't matter at all, the point was that according to PR, JBR had worn them before. The fact is that PR does say they were opened and that they were "actually used" (BBM):

"I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on."

Yet all pairs were still in the package when received by LE with the exception of the "Wednesday" pair. Why? How? Did JBR only ever happen to put on the "Wednesday" pair?

BBM
YOU queried me about (your words; my emphasis): “PR's recollection that JBR regularly wore size 12s.” So, yeah, in the context within which this conversation began, yes, it matters, “Whether or not JBR wore them regularly… .“ But, I’m okay with dropping that.
.

"I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on."

Why is she sure? That’s what I want to know. Does she actually remember this happening? Or, is it more a case of deductive reasoning on her part? Because she doesn’t seem to remember jbr ever actually wearing them. She doesn’t remember ever seeing any of them in the laundry, Etc

“…she opened them and put them on.”

I think this means, “she opened the package and she put a pair of panties on.”

“…she opened them and put them on.” This is how people talk, but, I’m Canadian, eh. However, that’s exactly how I would say, she opened the package and she put a pair of panties on: …she opened them and put them on. I don’t think Mrs Ramsey actually remembered this happening, I think she just believed that this is what must have happened.

As for why the Rs would hide the underwear (which I already said I think may have been un-hidden in the basement), they could've wanted to be rid of anything that had obviously been part of the crime. Since there was blood on the underwear, they thought they needed to stash the remaining underwear somewhere until police asked for them, just so that they could look like they're cooperating when they handed over the underwear (somewhat cooperative, at least).

First, I want to acknowledge that you think that the package may have been “uh-hidden in the basement.” So, the reason you give here is not what you think happened. We’re speculating. Cool.

However, if they wanted to be “rid of anything that had obviously been part of the crime” than why did they break the paintbrush and tie one piece to the garrote and put another piece back into the paint tote? Why did they rip out the pages before and after the so-called practice note but leave the so-called practice note intact? And then hand that notepad to the police? These acts are not consistent with someone who wanted to be “rid of anything that had obviously been part of the crime.”
…

AK

 

[OliviaG1996]

BBM
YOU queried me about (your words; my emphasis): &#8220;PR's recollection that JBR regularly wore size 12s.&#8221; So, yeah, in the context within which this conversation began, yes, it matters, &#8220;Whether or not JBR wore them regularly&#8230; .&#8220; But, I&#8217;m okay with dropping that.
.

"I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on."

Why is she sure? That&#8217;s what I want to know. Does she actually remember this happening? Or, is it more a case of deductive reasoning on her part? Because she doesn&#8217;t seem to remember jbr ever actually wearing them. She doesn&#8217;t remember ever seeing any of them in the laundry, Etc

Maybe PR says she is sure because she wanted LE to believe the absence of the size 12s in JBR's drawer proved an intruder moved the underwear from the drawer to somewhere else in the house.

&#8220;&#8230;she opened them and put them on.&#8221;

I think this means, &#8220;she opened the package and she put a pair of panties on.&#8221;

&#8220;&#8230;she opened them and put them on.&#8221; This is how people talk, but, I&#8217;m Canadian, eh. However, that&#8217;s exactly how I would say, she opened the package and she put a pair of panties on: &#8230;she opened them and put them on. I don&#8217;t think Mrs Ramsey actually remembered this happening, I think she just believed that this is what must have happened.

Yes, I'm American and I interpret what she said the same way. However, we don't know for certain how many pairs of underwear PR was talking about. We certainly don't know that the pair JBR happened to try on (and the only one she ever wore) was the "Wednesday" pair.

On the subject of JBR opening the package, how do you think she opened it? "Bloomies" underwear have that plastic loop that you have to cut with either a knife or scissors in order to open the package. Could dependent JBR have opened these by herself? I doubt it.

I don't think PR remembered anything about the underwear other than buying them and wrapping them for her niece. "Why is she lying about being sure she placed them in the drawer?" would be a fitting question here. Maybe my first sentence in this reply is the answer.

First, I want to acknowledge that you think that the package may have been &#8220;uh-hidden in the basement.&#8221; So, the reason you give here is not what you think happened. We&#8217;re speculating. Cool.

However, if they wanted to be &#8220;rid of anything that had obviously been part of the crime&#8221; than why did they break the paintbrush and tie one piece to the garrote and put another piece back into the paint tote? Why did they rip out the pages before and after the so-called practice note but leave the so-called practice note intact? And then hand that notepad to the police? These acts are not consistent with someone who wanted to be &#8220;rid of anything that had obviously been part of the crime.&#8221;
&#8230;

AK

Maybe the person who redressed JBR in the over-sized underwear and handled the package of underwear was not the same person who broke the paintbrush and put the remaining piece in the paint tote.

Has the practice note been confirmed to have been written by the same person who wrote the ransom note? Is it connected to the ransom note or the crime at all?

Who handed police the notepad? Was it one or both of the Rs? If only one of them did, that would explain the two different "styles" of "crime cover-up" that we've seen (for example: hiding package of over-sized underwear [hiding evidence] vs. putting remaining paintbrush piece in back paint tote [not hiding evidence]).

 

[Anti-K]

RBBM
Thanks, andreww.
It always has seemed that the timing of certain events will tell a story more completely. Omitting the arrival and departure of LE and guests, here’s a quick review regarding the timing from the 26th to the 28th. Maybe it will reveal more completely the Lack-of-Oversize-Bloomies caper.

-Morning of December 26 - Police searched for the entrance point of the Kidnapper and any other clues of his presence in the home.
-Afternoon of December 26 – Coroner called. Re-entry of BPD and FBI Agent. Home closed to everyone except LE.
-Afternoon of December 26 – JR’s lawyers attempt to reach FW. (Just tossing that detail in, though there's no Bloomies relevance.)
-Evening of December 26 – Coroner arrives. Examines body for 10 minutes; leaves.

-Evening of December 26 – Warrants secured to remove items from the home. Crime scene technicians would not have known to look for oversize panties as only the autopsy revealed this point. 7 pairs of girl’s underwear removed.
-Morning of December 27 – Coroner performs autopsy. Oversize 12 panties noted, as are injuries to JB’s genital area. A colposcope is brought in, in order to take photos of her vaginal vault.
-Afternoon of December 27 – Crime scene technicians remove another 10 pairs of girl’s underwear.

-Morning/afternoon December 28 – PP, sister to PR, performs her gigantic raid on items from the home.

After the sexual aspect of the crime was discovered at autopsy, they went back to the house and removed more panties. Were they looking for more panties because the ones she was wearing were over-sized? IMO, no. IMO, they were looking for used panties because of the sexual aspect of the crime.

I know the panties were over-sized but I want to point out that this isn’t mentioned in the AR. Schiller doesn’t mention it in his description of the autopsy, either (Thomas does; p. 42).
…

AK

 

[UKGuy]

After the sexual aspect of the crime was discovered at autopsy, they went back to the house and removed more panties. Were they looking for more panties because the ones she was wearing were over-sized? IMO, no. IMO, they were looking for used panties because of the sexual aspect of the crime.

I know the panties were over-sized but I want to point out that this isn’t mentioned in the AR. Schiller doesn’t mention it in his description of the autopsy, either (Thomas does; p. 42).
…

AK

Anti-K,

no. IMO, they were looking for used panties because of the sexual aspect of the crime.

So did they find the used panties, if not, why not?

I know the panties were over-sized but I want to point out that this isn’t mentioned in the AR. Schiller doesn’t mention it in his description of the autopsy, either (Thomas does; p. 42).
…

The size of the underwear JonBenet was wearing at autopsy was meant to be privileged information, known only to the killer, but it was leaked, prior to Patsy being interviewed, she said this is how she knew JonBenet had been wearing size-12's!

.

 

[Anti-K]

Maybe PR says she is sure because she wanted LE to believe the absence of the size 12s in JBR's drawer proved an intruder moved the underwear from the drawer to somewhere else in the house.

I can’t comment on this without knowing if you are being serious.

Yes, I'm American and I interpret what she said the same way. However, we don't know for certain how many pairs of underwear PR was talking about. We certainly don't know that the pair JBR happened to try on (and the only one she ever wore) was the "Wednesday" pair.

On the subject of JBR opening the package, how do you think she opened it? "Bloomies" underwear have that plastic loop that you have to cut with either a knife or scissors in order to open the package. Could dependent JBR have opened these by herself? I doubt it.

I don't think PR remembered anything about the underwear other than buying them and wrapping them for her niece. "Why is she lying about being sure she placed them in the drawer?" would be a fitting question here. Maybe my first sentence in this reply is the answer.

I agree with most everything you say here, excerpt I have no opinion on whether or not jbr could have opened the package.

Maybe the person who redressed JBR in the over-sized underwear and handled the package of underwear was not the same person who broke the paintbrush and put the remaining piece in the paint tote.

Has the practice note been confirmed to have been written by the same person who wrote the ransom note? Is it connected to the ransom note or the crime at all?

Who handed police the notepad? Was it one or both of the Rs? If only one of them did, that would explain the two different "styles" of "crime cover-up" that we've seen (for example: hiding package of over-sized underwear [hiding evidence] vs. putting remaining paintbrush piece in back paint tote [not hiding evidence]).

Maybe we’re looking at more than one person; sure. After all, there are 5 unsourced DNA samples.

The so-called practice note. My second most fav piece of evidence. I tried to find the answer to your question for a very long time. It seems to come down to this: the so-called practice note is not of sufficient length to determine if it was written by the ransom note author: however, there is nothing to distinguish its author from the ransom note author. It is sandwiched between a (missing) earlier draft and the (removed) ransom note; Thomas, and, as far as I can remember, everyone associated with the investigation thinks it is the beginning of an abandoned ransom note.

Based on the above, I provisionally accept that the so-called practice note and the ransom note are connected.
.

Mr Ramsey handed the note to Whitson (who went on to write an IDI book).
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

There is blood inside the crotch of the panties. There is urine. Which came first?

If the blood came first, wouldn&#8217;t the urine diffuse, wash away or otherwise somehow impact it? If the blood came after, would we be more likely to end up with blood spots? I don&#8217;t know, but I think we get blood spots if the blood drips onto the panties. Think about it. The urine goes through the panties, through the leggings, onto the floor (victim face down). The blood is &#8220;in the inner aspect of the crotch.&#8221; AR

Which came first? I say, urine first; blood last.

Now, follow me on this. Don&#8217;t worry, there is NO IDI (or, RDI) where I&#8217;m going.

The sexual assault occurred at or near point of death. So, the blood dripped onto the panties no sooner than at or near point of death. The urine comes before blood. The urine is on the floor, so the urine came at or near point of death.

At or near point of death means during the asphyxiation. The garrotte works like this, and once tightened it stays tight allowing one to do as they wish with their hands while their victim asphyxiates: http://tinyurl.com/mg4vvhr

So, here&#8217;s a possible sequence WARNING. GRAPHIC:
Victim on stomach. Garrotte tightened from behind. Victim urinates. Victim is turned over. Garrote continues to asphyxiate. Clothes pulled down. Garrote continues to asphyxiate. Penetration. Garrote continues to asphyxiate. Area wiped. Clothes pulled back up. By now, victim has been asphyxiated to death. Blood drips into the panties either during the penetration, clean-up or moving of body.
.
Sorry, there&#8217;s no room here for changing of panties, unless they were changed before the bad things began.
&#8230;

AK