No intruder?

[Agatha_C]

In the absence of any evidence, other than anecdotal, that size 12 Bloomingdales panties (made to fit a 10 year old) would have been so large they would have fallen off JBR, and as these drew no comment from either the coroner or police witnesses, the myth about the redressing in oversized panties by PR should therefore be able to be put to bed permanently. We can assume that if she was in fact wearing size 12 panties, then JBR put them on herself.

I'm happy to cease arguing about it provided it isn't continually being brought up by RDI as an accepted fact and as part of their 'totallity of evidence' against the R's.

Murri,

I can only speak for myself, but I would be willing to bet, the majority of RDI, does not consider the panties as the "totallity of evidence". As for myself, I dont really find them to the most important evidence in the case and again, Im betting that I, am not alone.

The argument taking place here and continuing here is the importance IDI is placing on the panties and the defense that they never existed and/or the size wasnt all that ridiculous. When knowing the answers to either of those questions, still does not tell any of us, who killed JBR. The important argument, is who put them on her, whether they were too small, too big, or fit just right doesnt really matter... Who in Hades, put them on her?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Goodness, I think this is agreement??

I'd say that Dr. Meyer had no known bias and found nothing remarkable to report on the underwear. Therefore the underwear she was wearing was not peculiar. Lack of remark by Linda Ardnt corroborates.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri,

I can only speak for myself, but I would be willing to bet, the majority of RDI, does not consider the panties as the "totallity of evidence". As for myself, I dont really find them to the most important evidence in the case and again, Im betting that I, am not alone.

The argument taking place here and continuing here is the importance IDI is placing on the panties and the defense that they never existed and/or the size wasnt all that ridiculous. When knowing the answers to either of those questions, still does not tell any of us, who killed JBR. The important argument, is who put them on her, whether they were too small, too big, or fit just right doesnt really matter... Who in Hades, put them on her?

You must read my posts a little more carefully before you reply Agatha_C. I did not say the panties were the RDI 'totallity of evidence', but I did say it was part of their 'totallity of evidence' against the Rs.

You are absolutely correct though in saying this is not an important, and the only reason I have continued the argument is because some RDI continued to argue for it's absolutely prime importance. You see these little things are aggravating in the extreme, and they sit and simmer on the surface, constantly being brought up to bolster RDI. At some stage, we need to look carefully and decide if it HAD any bearing on the case or not. Long held beliefs are hard to shake, and I'd lay odds that I'd still get a day or two's argument by the die-hards that these size 12 panties were falling off her, so big were they!! They would also contend that the package was in the wine cellar and were opened and placed on JBR by PR, despite there being no opened package containing the ramaining size 12 panties found by BPD.

So, I'm with you, I'm happy to drop the discussion on the size 12 panties, as long as RDI does.

 

[MurriFlower]

I'd say that Dr. Meyer had no known bias and found nothing remarkable to report on the underwear. Therefore the underwear she was wearing was not peculiar. Lack of remark by Linda Ardnt corroborates.

Yes of course. If this supposedly incompetent Coroner noticed the colour, pattern and day of the week on the panties, I'm thinking he would have commented on the enormous size of them, if that had been the case. I think size 12 were generous but not enormous.

 

[Agatha_C]

You must read my posts a little more carefully before you reply Agatha_C. I did not say the panties were the RDI 'totallity of evidence', but I did say it was part of their 'totallity of evidence' against the Rs.

You are absolutely correct though in saying this is not an important, and the only reason I have continued the argument is because some RDI continued to argue for it's absolutely prime importance. You see these little things are aggravating in the extreme, and they sit and simmer on the surface, constantly being brought up to bolster RDI. At some stage, we need to look carefully and decide if it HAD any bearing on the case or not. Long held beliefs are hard to shake, and I'd lay odds that I'd still get a day or two's argument by the die-hards that these size 12 panties were falling off her, so big were they!! They would also contend that the package was in the wine cellar and were opened and placed on JBR by PR, despite there being no opened package containing the ramaining size 12 panties found by BPD.

So, I'm with you, I'm happy to drop the discussion on the size 12 panties, as long as RDI does.

Murri,

The open package in the WC, is important, its the size being argued when there is proof that they were too big for her (just explaining here) even from the Rs camp, so its a moot point. It no longer makes sense to argue it. size is no longer the issue.... Who opened the package of panties? Who put them on her? Where did the package go? Why did it take 6 years for PR to turn them over to LE? Or should I have said LW turned them over....... Does this not speak of the importance of the panties to some extent? Not the size, but all the lies and mystery surrounding them....

 

[UKGuy]

Since all you have by way of contradiction is to accuse me of talking 'nonsense' and then you suggest that DNA evidence is 'invented' by me, then it is you who ae wasting time. Trying to make the Rs appear guilty is your game, not mine.

MurriFlower,

Since all you have by way of contradiction is to accuse me of talking 'nonsense'

Well you do particularly since Patsy herself agrees she purchased a pack of size-12 day of the week Bloomingdales. None of which, excluding the pair found on JonBenet, were discovered in the house. Did the intruder remove the clean size-12's too, any answers?

You said you have DNA, its all you talk about, but its touch-dna, if its otherwise give us references to its type please. Failure to do so, means I can accuse you of making up the evidence to suit your case, here it is the defense of the Ramseys.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Murri,

I can only speak for myself, but I would be willing to bet, the majority of RDI, does not consider the panties as the "totallity of evidence". As for myself, I dont really find them to the most important evidence in the case and again, Im betting that I, am not alone.

The argument taking place here and continuing here is the importance IDI is placing on the panties and the defense that they never existed and/or the size wasnt all that ridiculous. When knowing the answers to either of those questions, still does not tell any of us, who killed JBR. The important argument, is who put them on her, whether they were too small, too big, or fit just right doesnt really matter... Who in Hades, put them on her?

Agatha_C,
The importance of the size-12's is that it is here in this interview that she contradicts herself, or plain speaking , she lies.

Patsy says she placed all the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear and that JonBenet dressed herself in those size-12's. Yet no other size-12's were ever discovered in the house, or in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

Partially opened, wine-cellar, gift, no gift, none of this matters its IDI spin. Its Patsy's lies that matter, her account is at variance with the facts.

IDI have no forensic evidence, that which they make claims for is invented e.g. the DNA, we say touch-dna, they cannot account for the underwear touch-dna, they have no source for its type: semen, blood, skin etc. Its just DNA!

So IDI make up stuff using the absence of evidence tactic, oh we have not seen that , oh that was not documented, so it cannot exist, but they do not apply their methods to their own theories, curious that.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes of course. If this supposedly incompetent Coroner noticed the colour, pattern and day of the week on the panties, I'm thinking he would have commented on the enormous size of them, if that had been the case. I think size 12 were generous but not enormous.

MurriFlower,
Maybe he did , maybe it is written up in his accompanying notes, you just do not know.

Oh and you must stop talking to yourself in public.


.

 

[UKGuy]

So is this pants and longjohns taken right off her and then put back on one at a time? Or is it more like pants and longjohns peeled down past her crotch to allow for the fingering and then pulled back up?

MurriFlower
No , the size-12's and longjohns were placed on her after she was sexually molested.

You cannot know otherwise, you were not there, were you?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

Patsy admitted buying the panty set, she described them as being packaged in a plastic tube. Yet none were found, no tube either, in ANY size. Before anyone says that the intruder could have removed them, remember that the Rs sent LE what they claimed were the rest of the set a few years later (through their lawyer).
If I were the LE receiving them, the first thing I would do is try to determine of the panties I was eventually sent (years later) was of a color and pattern PRESENTLY being sold at Bloomingdale's or if they are consistent with what was available in November 1996 (when they were supposed to be bought).

 

[BBB167893]

Truth isn't a relative "who do you trust more?" concept. Its absolute "is it truth or not?"

Please, let's not get all Obi-Wan Kenobi here. You KNOW what I mean.

This is an unsolved child murder for 14 years. This despite DNA, handwriting, linguistics, the body, the weapons, and assistance from CASKU, CBI, FBI, US Secret Service, and all the great FBI profilers.

Boy, you took the words right out of my mouth, brother! And every time I think about why it's an unsolved murder for 14 years despite all of that, it makes me angry enough to eat a tank! RAW!!

Where did you say the competent, serious LE agents were again?

Not in Alex Hunter's little group, that's for damn sure!

 

[BBB167893]

Goodness, I think this is agreement??

God, I hope so! I thought I'd made myself clear on that point a long time ago.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri,

The open package in the WC, is important, its the size being argued when there is proof that they were too big for her (just explaining here) even from the Rs camp, so its a moot point. It no longer makes sense to argue it. size is no longer the issue.... Who opened the package of panties? Who put them on her? Where did the package go? Why did it take 6 years for PR to turn them over to LE? Or should I have said LW turned them over....... Does this not speak of the importance of the panties to some extent? Not the size, but all the lies and mystery surrounding them....

Agatha_C, you have missed my whole point entirely in continuing to discuss this totally unimportant point.

The size in itself is of no importance, it's the RDI assumption that they were put on her from a package in the WC, that only PR would know was there.

If the panties were put on by JBR herself, then there WAS NO OPENED PACKAGE CONTAINING THE REMAINING PANTIES IN THE WC. If BPD did not find the remaining panties upstairs in her room, then it's because they didn't look.

Packages in the WC contained what? The only evidence we have of this is PR saying some of them were for BR's impending birthday. If you have any evidence that an opened package with 6 pairs of Bloomies day of the week panties was in the WC, please post it.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,

Well you do particularly since Patsy herself agrees she purchased a pack of size-12 day of the week Bloomingdales. None of which, excluding the pair found on JonBenet, were discovered in the house. Did the intruder remove the clean size-12's too, any answers?

You said you have DNA, its all you talk about, but its touch-dna, if its otherwise give us references to its type please. Failure to do so, means I can accuse you of making up the evidence to suit your case, here it is the defense of the Ramseys.

.

You appear to have a comprehension issue UkGuy. I have no problem with agreeing that size 12 panties were found on JBR. I maintain that they were upstairs in her room and she put the Wednesday pair on herself that morning. No panties were taken out by the intruder or anyone else. If BPD didn't find them, then their search was not thorough. The fact that the Rs handed them over later, is an indication that your assumption is incorrect; the panties were there to be found, the size of the panties had nothing to do with the crime, the Rs were not involved. Simple. But I'm sure you will continue to argue, because that's what you do best.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower
No , the size-12's and longjohns were placed on her after she was sexually molested.

I think you mean re-placed. Pulled up in fact.

You cannot know otherwise, you were not there, were you?

And you were I suppose??

 

[DeeDee249]

Agatha_C, you have missed my whole point entirely in continuing to discuss this totally unimportant point.

The size in itself is of no importance, it's the RDI assumption that they were put on her from a package in the WC, that only PR would know was there.

If the panties were put on by JBR herself, then there WAS NO OPENED PACKAGE CONTAINING THE REMAINING PANTIES IN THE WC. If BPD did not find the remaining panties upstairs in her room, then it's because they didn't look.

Packages in the WC contained what? The only evidence we have of this is PR saying some of them were for BR's impending birthday. If you have any evidence that an opened package with 6 pairs of Bloomies day of the week panties was in the WC, please post it.

Of course the BP looked. How else would they know that 1. the panties had fecal staining and 2. they were all sized 4-6-8.
Unfortunately, we don't even know if ANYONE looked into those packages. But Patsy DID say (in one of her statements) that she had intended to put the panty set for Jenny in a package with other gifts. And she also said those gifts were in the basement.
I mentioned once before that it would have been helpful had LE actually taken those boxes into evidence or at least noted what was in there (including sizes). This way we would know if any of the opened boxes contained gifts that had been bought for Jenny. I can just see Patsy saying she "didn't remember buying that".....one MORE thing for the "intruder" to have brought in with him- gifts for a 12-year-old girl already wrapped in FAO paper...

 

[SunnieRN]

Agatha_C, you have missed my whole point entirely in continuing to discuss this totally unimportant point.

The size in itself is of no importance, it's the RDI assumption that they were put on her from a package in the WC, that only PR would know was there.

If the panties were put on by JBR herself, then there WAS NO OPENED PACKAGE CONTAINING THE REMAINING PANTIES IN THE WC. If BPD did not find the remaining panties upstairs in her room, then it's because they didn't look.

Packages in the WC contained what? The only evidence we have of this is PR saying some of them were for BR's impending birthday. If you have any evidence that an opened package with 6 pairs of Bloomies day of the week panties was in the WC, please post it.

MF, you can't have it both ways. Patsy never lies and she turned in the other pairs, six years later, that she stated were in JB's drawer, but were NOT found there by BPD when they took every pair in her room into evidence. So, where were the rest of the pairs, that later got turned in? I would say that is a much more interesting question. Also, that night, since they were not in JB's drawer, where were they?? Patsy never lies, remember?

 

[MurriFlower]

Patsy admitted buying the panty set, she described them as being packaged in a plastic tube. Yet none were found, no tube either, in ANY size. Before anyone says that the intruder could have removed them, remember that the Rs sent LE what they claimed were the rest of the set a few years later (through their lawyer).
If I were the LE receiving them, the first thing I would do is try to determine of the panties I was eventually sent (years later) was of a color and pattern PRESENTLY being sold at Bloomingdale's or if they are consistent with what was available in November 1996 (when they were supposed to be bought).

my bold

So DD, just explain to me again, WHY they would have handed over the remaining panties years later IF THEY WERE THE MURDERERS???

 

[MurriFlower]

MF, you can't have it both ways. Patsy never lies and she turned in the other pairs, six years later, that she stated were in JB's drawer, but were NOT found there by BPD when they took every pair in her room into evidence. So, where were the rest of the pairs, that later got turned in? I would say that is a much more interesting question. Also, that night, since they were not in JB's drawer, where were they?? Patsy never lies, remember?

Well think on this SunnieRN. If BPD were not incompetent (and they DID in fact search for the panties) WHY would the Rs' have handed them over YEARS LATER if they were the killers? That is a much more interesting question.

 

[MurriFlower]

Of course the BP looked. How else would they know that 1. the panties had fecal staining and 2. they were all sized 4-6-8.
Unfortunately, we don't even know if ANYONE looked into those packages. But Patsy DID say (in one of her statements) that she had intended to put the panty set for Jenny in a package with other gifts. And she also said those gifts were in the basement.
I mentioned once before that it would have been helpful had LE actually taken those boxes into evidence or at least noted what was in there (including sizes). This way we would know if any of the opened boxes contained gifts that had been bought for Jenny. I can just see Patsy saying she "didn't remember buying that".....one MORE thing for the "intruder" to have brought in with him- gifts for a 12-year-old girl already wrapped in FAO paper...

Now you are making this up.