No intruder?

[SunnieRN]

UKGuy, you may want to look at Daves' thread about needing help. In the picture links is a picture of the Barbie nightgown in question.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy, you may want to look at Daves' thread about needing help. In the picture links is a picture of the Barbie nightgown in question.

SunnieRN,

Thanks for the reference. I had a look but it does not seem as pink as it does in the photo the one on that site appears more red. I wonder if it is the barbie nightgown. I've never seen it or the doll anywhere else?


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, I wasn't there, HOTYH, but use a little common sense, brother! Are you honestly trying to tell me that the person who sexually assaulted her--regardless of who it was and why they did it--DID NOT have to pull her pants down to do it?

What exactly am I missing here?

What proof do you have that JBR was redressed? Please include sources. Maybe she was redressed, but I dont know of any aspect of her injuries that would necessarily require her longjohns and underwear to be removed. Do you?

If she was redressed I'd be interested in knowing if she was dressed more warmly. IOW did she go from simple PJ's to longjohns, sweater, and blanket?

 

[MurriFlower]

What proof do you have that JBR was redressed? Please include sources. Maybe she was redressed, but I dont know of any aspect of her injuries that would necessarily require her longjohns and underwear to be removed. Do you?

If she was redressed I'd be interested in knowing if she was dressed more warmly. IOW did she go from simple PJ's to longjohns, sweater, and blanket?

No, of course she didn't need to have had her clothes taken off, just to insert a finger. True HOTYH, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've always believed the RDI spin about taking off both the panties and longjohns, but I've never believed the bit about the oversized panties.

So what say you to that RDI?? She wasn't raped, only poked with a finger, so no need to strip her and redress her at all.

 

[UKGuy]

No, of course she didn't need to have had her clothes taken off, just to insert a finger. True HOTYH, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've always believed the RDI spin about taking off both the panties and longjohns, but I've never believed the bit about the oversized panties.

So what say you to that RDI?? She wasn't raped, only poked with a finger, so no need to strip her and redress her at all.

MurriFlower,
Debate with you and your sidekick appears to deliver diminishing returns. You have been informed on numerous occassions that no size-12 underwear was discovered anywhere in the house, never mind JonBenet's underwear drawer in her bathroom.

This is despite Patsy's claim that she placed all the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

So someone redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and the longjohns are on her to hide either/or both her sexual assault or her size-12 underwear.

Regardless of the suspect this is a sexually motivated homicide, so stop trying to portray JonBenet as untouched by human hand or artifice prior to being placed into the wine-cellar.

Patsy's lies, in her interview regarding the size-12's, implicates her minimally as covering for someone else!



.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,
Debate with you and your sidekick appears to deliver diminishing returns. You have been informed on numerous occassions that no size-12 underwear was discovered anywhere in the house, never mind JonBenet's underwear drawer in her bathroom.

This is despite Patsy's claim that she placed all the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

So someone redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and the longjohns are on her to hide either/or both her sexual assault or her size-12 underwear.

Regardless of the suspect this is a sexually motivated homicide, so stop trying to portray JonBenet as untouched by human hand or artifice prior to being placed into the wine-cellar.

Patsy's lies, in her interview regarding the size-12's, implicates her minimally as covering for someone else!

UkGuy, I'm having trouble again understanding your shorthand.

Who is my sidekick? What is diminishing returns?

My assertion is that no oversized underwear was found on JBR. There was no comment from the Coroner that she had underwear that would have fallen off her, due to it being (as per Koldcase's picture) so large it was flogging her knees. PR has no interest in the underwear she purchased at some previous time for her niece but subsequently gave to her (strangled/bashed/sexually abused) daughter. This is because it is a trivial thing in comparison to the horror of her daughter's murder. It does not have the importance you have placed upon it, because there appears to be no evidence JBR was even wearing oversized underwear, let alone that her usual underwear (whatever size you believe that to be) was missing. The longjohns were put on her by her mother, to keep her warm, not to hide too large underwear or sexual assault!!

There is no evidence JBR was sexually assaulted PRIOR to the night of her death, so stop trying to make this into an incest related crime.

PR did not lie about the underwear. Refer to my Wicki definition. If (and this is a big IF), what she said was later contradicted, it was a normal and understandable mistake that a traumatised parent might make about an issue that had zero interest for her. And it had zero interest for her, simply because it was designed to implicate her in her daughter's murder, rather than find the person responsible. How you can assert that too large underwear would hide prior sexual assault (had it occurred), I have no idea. The fact is that the size 12 underwear, (if she was wearing them) was only 2" larger in the waist than her normal underwear (and being new, was probably no different to what she usually wore) and was definitely not hanging to her knees as RDI have tried to make us believe.

 

[SunnieRN]

UkGuy, I'm having trouble again understanding your shorthand.

Who is my sidekick? What is diminishing returns?

My assertion is that no oversized underwear was found on JBR. There was no comment from the Coroner that she had underwear that would have fallen off her, due to it being (as per Koldcase's picture) so large it was flogging her knees. PR has no interest in the underwear she purchased at some previous time for her niece but subsequently gave to her (strangled/bashed/sexually abused) daughter. This is because it is a trivial thing in comparison to the horror of her daughter's murder. It does not have the importance you have placed upon it, because there appears to be no evidence JBR was even wearing oversized underwear, let alone that her usual underwear (whatever size you believe that to be) was missing. The longjohns were put on her by her mother, to keep her warm, not to hide too large underwear or sexual assault!!

There is no evidence JBR was sexually assaulted PRIOR to the night of her death, so stop trying to make this into an incest related crime.

PR did not lie about the underwear. Refer to my Wicki definition. If (and this is a big IF), what she said was later contradicted, it was a normal and understandable mistake that a traumatised parent might make about an issue that had zero interest for her. And it had zero interest for her, simply because it was designed to implicate her in her daughter's murder, rather than find the person responsible. How you can assert that too large underwear would hide prior sexual assault (had it occurred), I have no idea. The fact is that the size 12 underwear, (if she was wearing them) was only 2" larger in the waist than her normal underwear (and being new, was probably no different to what she usually wore) and was definitely not hanging to her knees as RDI have tried to make us believe.

Just maybe the fact that John and Patsy turned in the additional pairs of size 12 underwear to police a couple of years after the fact, stating it was the REST of the package should alter your above statement, since according to you the R's never lied.

 

[Ames]

UkGuy, I'm having trouble again understanding your shorthand.

Who is my sidekick? What is diminishing returns?

My assertion is that no oversized underwear was found on JBR. There was no comment from the Coroner that she had underwear that would have fallen off her, due to it being (as per Koldcase's picture) so large it was flogging her knees. PR has no interest in the underwear she purchased at some previous time for her niece but subsequently gave to her (strangled/bashed/sexually abused) daughter. This is because it is a trivial thing in comparison to the horror of her daughter's murder. It does not have the importance you have placed upon it, because there appears to be no evidence JBR was even wearing oversized underwear, let alone that her usual underwear (whatever size you believe that to be) was missing. The longjohns were put on her by her mother, to keep her warm, not to hide too large underwear or sexual assault!!

There is no evidence JBR was sexually assaulted PRIOR to the night of her death, so stop trying to make this into an incest related crime.

PR did not lie about the underwear. Refer to my Wicki definition. If (and this is a big IF), what she said was later contradicted, it was a normal and understandable mistake that a traumatised parent might make about an issue that had zero interest for her. And it had zero interest for her, simply because it was designed to implicate her in her daughter's murder, rather than find the person responsible. How you can assert that too large underwear would hide prior sexual assault (had it occurred), I have no idea. The fact is that the size 12 underwear, (if she was wearing them) was only 2" larger in the waist than her normal underwear (and being new, was probably no different to what she usually wore) and was definitely not hanging to her knees as RDI have tried to make us believe.

It is a known FACT that JB was found wearing those size 12 panties...maybe you should go back and read those interviews again...or have you even read them to start with???? You remind me of my sister...she is strictly IDI...and THEN she went on to inform me of how POOR the Ramsey's were!! HUH??? WHAT??? POOR? "Amy"...she said..."They didn't have alot of money, they were poor". SUUURREEE they were. Apparently she hasn't seen that big sprawling mansion that they lived in...or knew that John made 180,000 dollars in a BONUS that year...or that John was a CEO....etc. See...she hadn't done her homework...she just decided that the Ramsey's didn't have money, for some reason. She knew absolutely nothing about this case...only that "an intruder did it." Okay...whatever....


====================

This will have to do for now...I have to go to work...

Police Interviews. In the August 28, 2000 interview with Patsy Ramsey, Deputy Boulder DA Michael Kane stated the following:"Okay. Were you aware that these were the size of panties that she was wearing, and this has been publicized, it is out in the open, that they were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of that?" (p. 93:lines 1-6).

Patsy stated that JB usually wore a size 6-8.....12-14 would have fell down to her knees!!!! Without a doubt....just as KoldKase profile picture shows. I have a daughter...after size 6-8...there is 8-10.....10-12.....12-14......that is THREE sizes too big. Why don't YOU put on a pair of panties that are three sizes to big for YOU...and see what happens.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is a known FACT that JB was found wearing those size 12 panties...maybe you should go back and read those interviews again...or have you even read them to start with???? You remind me of my sister...she is strictly IDI...and THEN she went on to inform me of how POOR the Ramsey's were!! HUH??? WHAT??? POOR? "Amy"...she said..."They didn't have alot of money, they were poor". SUUURREEE they were. Apparently she hasn't seen that big sprawling mansion that they lived in...or knew that John made 180,000 dollars in a BONUS that year...or that John was a CEO....etc. See...she hadn't done her homework...she just decided that the Ramsey's didn't have money, for some reason. She knew absolutely nothing about this case...only that "an intruder did it." Okay...whatever....

Why not be helpful and tell us how you know it to be fact? The interviews of what interrogators TOLD PR isn't valid because I can show they typically lie to garner desired testimony from a suspect. SD claims they're special and cant lie, which would be a first.

I think its very unlikely JBR was wearing size 12's. I doubt you can source it effectively and I noticed you didint source it at all! The idea of yours that the coroner went into detail on KOREA printed on the handle while omitting the bizarre size 12 detail is highly absurd.

 

[Agatha_C]

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...


[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107"]The Gigantic (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear Found On JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]
Link showing the difference in size…..

 

[Agatha_C]

continued

15 Q.(By Mr. Morrissey) What do you
16 do, I mean, when you do that, what do you
17 think about as far as the person you're
18 purchasing them for?
19 A. Well, you just look, small,
20 medium, large, you know, and you pick the
21 one you think would most likely fit.
22 Q. And do they have age groups or
23 are they suggested for like a 10-year-old
24 through a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old
25 through a 15-year-old? Do they do it that

91
1 way too?
2 A. I never paid any attention if
3 they do.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay.
5 Q.(By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it
6 this way. Did you say you bought more than
7 one set of Bloomi's?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?
10 A. I can't remember.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q.-- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to

94
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q.(By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.
12 Q.- that was in the house.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
15 you know, that is something that was in this
16 house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q.-- that belonged to your daughter,
19 these panties?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q.(By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.

95
1 Q. Did Lou Schmidt ever show you a
2 photo?
3 A. No.

Q.(By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something --
A. Right.
Q.- that was in the house.
A. Yes.
Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
A. Yes.
Q.-- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
A. Correct.

This is called putting facts where your mouth is and using more than Wiki.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave,

em intelligence?


.

And just WHAT is that supposed to mean?

 

[joeskidbeck]

continued

15 Q.(By Mr. Morrissey) What do you
16 do, I mean, when you do that, what do you
17 think about as far as the person you're
18 purchasing them for?
19 A. Well, you just look, small,
20 medium, large, you know, and you pick the
21 one you think would most likely fit.
22 Q. And do they have age groups or
23 are they suggested for like a 10-year-old
24 through a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old
25 through a 15-year-old? Do they do it that

91
1 way too?
2 A. I never paid any attention if
3 they do.
4 MR. MORRISSEY: Okay.
5 Q.(By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it
6 this way. Did you say you bought more than
7 one set of Bloomi's?
8 A. I can't remember.
9 Q. You bought some for JonBenet?
10 A. I can't remember.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q.-- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to

94
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small.
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.
5 MR. KANE: Okay.
6 Q.(By Mr. Morrissey) And you
7 understand the reason we are asking this, we
8 want to make sure that this intruder did not
9 bring these panties with him, this was
10 something --
11 A. Right.
12 Q.- that was in the house.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And we are clear that, as far as
15 you know, that is something that was in this
16 house?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q.-- that belonged to your daughter,
19 these panties?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q.(By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.

95
1 Q. Did Lou Schmidt ever show you a
2 photo?
3 A. No.

Q.(By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something --
A. Right.
Q.- that was in the house.
A. Yes.
Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
A. Yes.
Q.-- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
A. Correct.

This is called putting facts where your mouth is and using more than Wiki.

Thanks, Angela. There is no doubt that JonBenet had on panties that were way too big for her. Notice that when Patsy realizes that she has been backed into a corner, she can't remember. She does however admit that the panties were in the house and that she put them in JonBenet's drawer. One more example of a Ramsey lie. Outright lie and there is no reason for it whatsoever. The panties were located in the cellar. Any intruder could have found them by accident, but Patsy states that she had put them in the drawer and years later they are found in Atlanta. The "rest" of the package. This is one of those lies that make her look extremely guilty as there was absolutely no reason for it.

 

[BBB167893]

What proof do you have that JBR was redressed? Please include sources. Maybe she was redressed, but I dont know of any aspect of her injuries that would necessarily require her longjohns and underwear to be removed. Do you?

It would be pretty difficult to jab her with the paintbrush handle with her pants on, wouldn't it?

Leaving that aside for a moment, you'll have to explain to me what you're saying. Is the idea that the creep who killed her merely slipped his hands down into her pants and did it? Doesn't that contradict the DNA you IDIs love so much?

I'm just trying to figure out where you're going with this, HOTYH.

If she was redressed I'd be interested in knowing if she was dressed more warmly. IOW did she go from simple PJ's to longjohns, sweater, and blanket?

That, I couldn't say.

 

[BBB167893]

No, of course she didn't need to have had her clothes taken off, just to insert a finger. True HOTYH, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I've always believed the RDI spin about taking off both the panties and longjohns, but I've never believed the bit about the oversized panties.

I'm afraid it's not just "RDI spin," Murri. It's the whole basis upon which the DNA you IDIs love so much rests!

So what say you to that RDI?? She wasn't raped, only poked with a finger, so no need to strip her and redress her at all.

What say I to that? This: for the sake of argument, let's say that simply inserting a finger is all that was needed. (And for the record, I don't know of any RDI who have ever claimed that she was raped in the true sense.) How, then, did the creep do it? They'd have to do it from behind, wouldn't they? Or at least from the side. Let's start from there.

 

[Agatha_C]

Beck,

So many lies were told that I dont think they even know what the truth is anymore. I'm not just talking about the Rs, but everyone involved, lies and cover up. In this giant forest of deceit and shadows, grows one small tree; The tree of truth......

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe what probably happened is they found oversize underwear like PR says, in a drawer. They asked PR if she saw crime scene photos, and when PR said no, they knew they could lie to her and claim JBR was found wearing inappropriate clothing at the time of the murder, thus manufacturing a scenario that includes family complicity.

This is the only explanation I can think of as to why the coroner would decide to include the KOREA on the paintbrush detail, while omitting the immensely more significant detail of the inappropriate underwear.

Please note the interrogator wished it to be seen as inappropriate behavior for JBR to wear oversize underwear, and claimed she was wearing this underwear at the time of the murder, probably to garner desired testimony. This claim doesn't equate to a case fact because interrogators are COMMONLY KNOWN TO LIE.

They lied. They asked if she'd seen crime scene photo so they knew they could lie.

You'll be needing a real source and not hearsay. Now maybe if you had the crime scene photo they're referring to that could be more convincing than an interrogators whimsical line of questioning?



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 --


Q.(By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey,
22 have you ever seen a crime scene photo of
23 the underwear that your daughter was found
24 in?
25 A. No.

It seems you want to presume that everything an interrogator says is fact, while I can find interrogators who admit lying is commonplace. Its what they do to knock suspects off balance. What about that?

This is just like shirt fibers where the only 'facts' RDI has is Q&A interrogation lies. If RDI had expert testimony or report on fibers from JR's shirt matching fibers inside the underwear it might be better. Even then, JR fibers on JBR isn't remarkable.

 

[BBB167893]

There is no evidence JBR was sexually assaulted PRIOR to the night of her death, so stop trying to make this into an incest related crime.

You ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

[Agatha_C]

HOTYH,

If it was that simple, why did PR have to lie? Why lie at all if you are Innocent? Whether or not LE lied, why did PR?

 

[BBB167893]

The interviews of what interrogators TOLD PR isn't valid because I can show they typically lie to garner desired testimony from a suspect.

You can show how COPS lie to trick suspects. Kane, Levin and Morrissey were not COPS.

SD claims they're special and cant lie, which would be a first.

Actually, I neither claim that Kane, Levin and Morrissey were special, NOR that it is a first. Indeed, they had to abide by the same prosecutorial rules as everyone else. And I'll be happy to provide them for you (AGAIN!)