No intruder?

[Holdontoyourhat]

Honestly, I don't see how they could have been any more explicit. There is no other answer except that she was wearing them. As I said before, LE didn't dream up these underwear in their imaginations. Patsy bought them and admitted to it. She also turned in the other 6 pairs several years later. That would be the size 12/14 Sunday-Tuesday and Thursday-Saturday. The Wednesday pair were found on JonBenet's body.

Here's an example of explicit: "JBR was found wearing oversize underwear," or "we removed THESE underwear," or "here's the photo what do you think about the oversize underwear"

Can you find anything like this because I couldn't. Like I said if ST or LS or the coroner said she was found in this oversize underwear then I'll accept it.

It should be no problem for RDI to come up with ST or LA explicitly stating she was wearing oversize underwear when she was found. That is, if its really true and not a myth.

 

[DeeDee249]

How could her legs be exposed and be wearing longjohns at the same time?

Stop playing games. You know exactly what I meant. Her legs weren't BARE and I didn't say they were. They were visible (in her longjohns). That better?

 

[BBB167893]

Remember the coroner notes Wednesday underwear and KOREA paintbrush, right? Why would he not make note of the peculiar non-fitting underwear? This is the question.

Makes you wonder what ELSE he held back, doesn't it?

I believe there were Wednesday underwear in her size too, right?

Far as I know.

Pardon me but I'm not a big expert on the underwear issue.

You're pardoned.

Heck I'm in a good mood today: if ST says oversize underwear I'll buy that.

You might be sorry you said that!

Page 46, paperback edition:

The long underwear and a pair of oversized floral panties with Wednesday printed on them

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Stop playing games. You know exactly what I meant. Her legs weren't BARE and I didn't say they were. They were visible (in her longjohns). That better?

Do you believe her feet were uncovered and bare? How do you know the blanket wasn't wrapped around her legs also?

 

[UKGuy]

Stop playing games. You know exactly what I meant. Her legs weren't BARE and I didn't say they were. They were visible (in her longjohns). That better?

DeeDee249,
From memory her feet were bare.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Makes you wonder what ELSE he held back, doesn't it?



Far as I know.



You're pardoned.



You might be sorry you said that!

Page 46, paperback edition:

The long underwear and a pair of oversized floral panties with Wednesday printed on them

...were taken into evidence? ...were removed from JBR? What?

Complete sentence in full context please.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

DeeDee249,
From memory her feet were bare.


.

From whose memory? Yours?

It would be a lot better of you sourced your remarks.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
From memory her feet were bare.


.

Sigh....her LEGS were not bare. The longjohns do not have "footie" coverings. They come to the ankle. Her feet were bare. BOTH legs and the feet attached to them were NOT covered by the blanket.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sigh....her LEGS were not bare. The longjohns do not have "footie" coverings. They come to the ankle. Her feet were bare. BOTH legs and the feet attached to them were NOT covered by the blanket.

There ARE myths surrounding this case. I can only wish sources for statements made as fact when we're not all in full agreement that they are in fact fact.

 

[DeeDee249]

Do you believe her feet were uncovered and bare? How do you know the blanket wasn't wrapped around her legs also?

I believe her feet were uncovered and bare. The longjohns come to about ankle length. She was described by LE (who were told by JR and FW) that JB was lying on her back in the WC with the white blanket pulled over her torso. FW describes touching her foot which he said was cold. Her head, which was visible (that means NOT covered by the blanket) was described as cocked to the right.
Obviously, as Officer French committed the first (in a long line) of police errors by not being able to figure out a simple wood latch on the WC door, NO ONE saw JB's body in situ, where it would have lain (allegedly) untouched since her death.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe her feet were uncovered and bare. The longjohns come to about ankle length. She was described by LE (who were told by JR and FW) that JB was lying on her back in the WC with the white blanket pulled over her torso. FW describes touching her foot which he said was cold. Her head, which was visible (that means NOT covered by the blanket) was described as cocked to the right.
Obviously, as Officer French committed the first (in a long line) of police errors by not being able to figure out a simple wood latch on the WC door, NO ONE saw JB's body in situ, where it would have lain (allegedly) untouched since her death.

Then we're stuck with JR's testimony. Not unlike the RN on the rear staircase steps.

Did he ever state her feet were bare or covered or do you not know?

 

[DeeDee249]

Then we're stuck with JR's testimony. Not unlike the RN on the rear staircase steps.

Did he ever state her feet were bare or covered or do you not know?

I believe it was in his interviews. She also had bare feet (for all present to see) when she was brought up. I have never seen anywhere it said that she was wearing socks in the WC and/or that JR or FW (the only two people to have seen her body in the WC) removed socks.

This is not addressed to you specifically, Holdon, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about her socks (or lack thereof). I really don't know why that seems to be important or why there is so much discussion about whether her parent(s) put her to bed (if they did get that far) and took off socks before they did, or if she was wearing tights or not. Obviously she was wearing some kind of sock or tights under her shoes or boots when she went out that day. Neither socks or tights were found in the basement, left behind with the blanket, pink nightie. Neither was described by Arndt or the coroner as being on the body after she was brought up. So any logical person needs to assume she was not wearing any at that point, and as there were none found in the basement, she was not wearing any when she was put in there. The soles of her bare feet could have been tested as well as socks or tights could have been tested to see if any debris from the WC were on there. No socks or tights were tested or sought for testing, as far as I know.
The simple facts are that we have no way of knowing whether any of the events the parents described as having occurred after they left the White's Christmas night actually happened. We do know they delivered a few gifts on the way home. and even that, is say-so. One thing we know for SURE- all 4 of them reached their home that night. As BR claimed he followed his sister as she WALKED into the house, we can assume they were all alive at that point. Only three were alive a few hours later.
We do know what she was wearing when she was brought up and what she was wearing when the coroner first saw her in the living room. And that is all we know for sure.

 

[BBB167893]

...were taken into evidence? ...were removed from JBR? What?

Complete sentence in full context please.

Fine:

The long underwear and a pair of oversized floral panties with Wednesday printed on them were both stained with urine and the panties had red stains in the crotch.

I'll see what else he says about it.

 

[UKGuy]

Sigh....her LEGS were not bare. The longjohns do not have "footie" coverings. They come to the ankle. Her feet were bare. BOTH legs and the feet attached to them were NOT covered by the blanket.

DeeDee249,
Well I do remember Fleet White saying he touched JonBenet's foot in the wine-cellar and it felt very cold.

.

 

[UKGuy]

I believe it was in his interviews. She also had bare feet (for all present to see) when she was brought up. I have never seen anywhere it said that she was wearing socks in the WC and/or that JR or FW (the only two people to have seen her body in the WC) removed socks.

This is not addressed to you specifically, Holdon, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about her socks (or lack thereof). I really don't know why that seems to be important or why there is so much discussion about whether her parent(s) put her to bed (if they did get that far) and took off socks before they did, or if she was wearing tights or not. Obviously she was wearing some kind of sock or tights under her shoes or boots when she went out that day. Neither socks or tights were found in the basement, left behind with the blanket, pink nightie. Neither was described by Arndt or the coroner as being on the body after she was brought up. So any logical person needs to assume she was not wearing any at that point, and as there were none found in the basement, she was not wearing any when she was put in there. The soles of her bare feet could have been tested as well as socks or tights could have been tested to see if any debris from the WC were on there. No socks or tights were tested or sought for testing, as far as I know.
The simple facts are that we have no way of knowing whether any of the events the parents described as having occurred after they left the White's Christmas night actually happened. We do know they delivered a few gifts on the way home. and even that, is say-so. One thing we know for SURE- all 4 of them reached their home that night. As BR claimed he followed his sister as she WALKED into the house, we can assume they were all alive at that point. Only three were alive a few hours later.
We do know what she was wearing when she was brought up and what she was wearing when the coroner first saw her in the living room. And that is all we know for sure.

DeeDee249,
Neither parent stated that they removed JonBenet's socks, or whatever covered her feet. John said he only removed her shoes and Patsy her velvet pants, and not her underwear. She was quizzed specifically on this issue, since it obviously related to the size-12's.

So paraphrasing, no socks is not an issue if she has been staged to appear as is she has been abducted from her bed, no socks might be expected.

But if the parents left her in socks, then an intruder abducted her, where are her socks?

From memory her feet were tested and lint was found on her soles.


.

 

[SunnieRN]

Maybe you didn't bother to read my post. I'm saying LE found oversize underwear in a drawer and decided that was inappropriate clothing for JBR to have, right? Then they CLAIMED thats the underwear she was wearing when she was murdered, to bring the family into complicity in the crime. Just like the fiber lies, to bring the family into complicity. They even asked PR if she'd seen the photos so they would know if they could lie about that.

JBR was probably not wearing oversize underwear because the coroner would have noted the peculiarity first, before noting the word KOREA on the paintbrush. This indicates they lied to her.

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.

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.

The fact that fiber testimony cant be corroborated by expert testimony or report can be construed as more lying by interrogators, to garner testimony. Its very common for interrogators to lie.

1) LE didn't find them in the drawer, they were not there. The R's turned them in years later, admitting they were the rest of the same package.

2) PR as with any time she is backed into a corner 'can't remember'.

3) With all the evidence presented to you in the last TWO pages, you are:

a) arguing only for the sake of arguing

b) truly do not understand or

c) are trying to instigate any argument you can to divert from the truth.

Either way, you are not making ANY valid points, or showing any EVIDENCE to support your claims.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

1) LE didn't find them in the drawer, they were not there. The R's turned them in years later, admitting they were the rest of the same package.

2) PR as with any time she is backed into a corner 'can't remember'.

3) With all the evidence presented to you in the last TWO pages, you are:

a) arguing only for the sake of arguing

b) truly do not understand or

c) are trying to instigate any argument you can to divert from the truth.

Either way, you are not making ANY valid points, or showing any EVIDENCE to support your claims.

You've got it all bass-ackwards.

RDI asserts that PR and/or JR did it. Therefore, RDI has the unenviable role of accounting, in a plausible way, for ALL the evidence.

There are probably 1000's of assertions that are implied with simply claiming PR and/or JR did it. The burden is on RDI to make valid points and support those points with evidence and sources for that evidence.

Many times things stated as fact are really unknown. Stated as fact is that JBR was wearing oversize underwear. The closest thing to a source is SuperDave quoting ST's book that noted urine stained oversize underwear, but STILL doesn't say if those were collected FROM JBR's body.

Its unbelievable to me that the coroner would note details like Wednesday and KOREA while not noting the detail of a peculiar fit to the underwear. Dont you agree? Why wouldn't Linda Ardnt say "hey whats with the oversize panties?" like 100 times?

 

[MurriFlower]

You want facts and source, here ya go... Practice what you preach though and give us more then Wiki. It grows tiresome giving facts when you receive none. So put your facts where your mouth is and give us something other then Wiki.


http://www.acandyrose.com/jonbenetindex.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.

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?

85
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.

86
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?

87
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.


PR said she bought them and opened them. If she dressed her for bed that night why didnt she notice the panties that should have come off with her pants if they were size 12... Post below is a link that takes you to FFJ, where a poster their shows a side by side comparison of size 6 and 12 bloomies...


The Gigantic (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear Found On JonBenet - Forums For Justice
Link showing the difference in size…..

These are standard US girls measurements:

Girls size 6
Chest 25
Waist 22
Hip 26.5
Length 46
Back-waist 10.5

Girls size 12
Chest 30
Waist 25.5
Hip 32
Length 58.5
Back-waist 13.5

See Bloomingdales size chart here
http://www1.bloomingdales.com/popup/vendorSizingChart_kids.jsp?kids_apparel.jpg

I noticed you glossed over what PR said here, so I've just highlighted it fyi.

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.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

DeeDee249,
Neither parent stated that they removed JonBenet's socks, or whatever covered her feet. John said he only removed her shoes and Patsy her velvet pants, and not her underwear. She was quizzed specifically on this issue, since it obviously related to the size-12's.

So paraphrasing, no socks is not an issue if she has been staged to appear as is she has been abducted from her bed, no socks might be expected.

But if the parents left her in socks, then an intruder abducted her, where are her socks?

From memory her feet were tested and lint was found on her soles.


.

OK so we dont really know if the blanket covered her feet up, but she had no socks when brought upstairs? Arent there any photos of her on the floor in the living room that were released?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I noticed you glossed over what PR said here, so I've just highlighted it fyi.

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.

That explains why LA and the coroner didn't make a huge deal out of the oversize underwear. And this graphic siggy used by a poster to illustrate the size difference is some kind of sick joke?