No intruder?

[DeeDee249]

You're my hero. Do you have a link?

I'll try. You know I never save anything.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Like socks, Korea and blah blah blah.
Thanks for coming round to my way of thinking.

but wait...

Socks are outside the 20%
Korea is inside the 20%
blah blah blah? Is that you on New Years morning?

 

[BBB167893]

What assumptions?

"What assumptions?" Are you kidding? Let's have a look, shall we:

without also transferring her own,

Who says she didn't?

on the same day she is sexually assaulted and murdered by an unknown assailant

That's the BIG assumption, isn't it? Two assumptions, rather.

who we know handled these very same items,

Oh, we KNOW that, do we? Another assumption.

and who may have fended off JBR's defensive swipes,

Ugh!

That the skin cells on the longjohns were from primary contact that night?

That's another one!

Because matching DNA was found mixed with assault blood?

I'm a bit remiss to use the word "matching," HOTYH. I doubt most LE professionals would consider a nine-marker sample (and who knows how much that was amplified) a "match" to anything. In fact, most in LE DISCOURAGE the use of partial profiles. And as for being mixed with assault blood, the assumption there is that it only got there during the assault. Lest we forget, Henry Lee found human DNA in other samples of underwear that hadn't even been opened yet.

How it all becomes one big huge fingerprint right on the middle of the crime scene?

Yup, that would be another one! Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, this case is in the damn shape it's in, because of bulls*** like that!

Case closed, SD.

Oh, not on your LIFE, my friend. Not on your LIFE.

Can't help you now.

Did I ask for your help?

 

[BBB167893]

JonBenet did not make any "defensive swipes' on whoever killed her. This would even go against most IDI theories of the intruder using a stun gun. How in the world do you think she could have defended herself?

Bravo, Beck! How do they expect us to believe this stuff when they can't keep it straight themselves?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Did I ask for your help?

Cant say I didn't try, right? Its your nickel, brother.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yup, that would be another one! Indeed, as far as I'm concerned, this case is in the damn shape it's in, because of bulls*** like that!

How is it NOT a big huge fingerprint?

Thanks to Mary Lacy, you've got skin cells in two places on the longjohns that match more genetic material mixed with assault blood. Where is the assumption here? 9 markers? Isn't that like one in 10,000 that it is not owned by the same person? Dont bet your life against those odds brother.

Please remember that this could've been honest DNA that could've matched someone tested, but it didnt. If RDI was correct then there was nothing preventing this innocent DNA from simply matching a known bystander. Why is this innocent DNA owner so evasive?

 

[BBB167893]

my bold

I suggest bringing that up with SD and all the other devout RDI who argue the wrist ligature was staging and use the absence of marks of resistance as their main support argument.

Well, I'm game, but I'm puzzled!

Beck said:

JonBenet did not make any "defensive swipes' on whoever killed her. This would even go against most IDI theories of the intruder using a stun gun. How in the world do you think she could have defended herself?

HOTYH answered:

I suggest bringing that up with SD and all the other devout RDI who argue the wrist ligature was staging and use the absence of marks of resistance as their main support argument

Maybe it's just me, but that seem to be a non-sequitur. How do they connect?

How long does the stun gun effect last (question is for SD):laugh:

A stun gun's effect lasts for a few seconds. They are designed to "stun" as the name implies. (And I can tell you it was NOT funny!)

 

[BBB167893]

Cant say I didn't try, right?

No, you've given your all, and for what it's worth, I appreciate that.

Its your nickel, brother.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[BBB167893]

How is it NOT a big huge fingerprint?

We've been over that a few dozen times, at LEAST!

1) Because human DNA is EVERYWHERE;

2) and this factors in with #1, the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more they're going to pick up DNA that is irrelevant. heck, even BEFORE touch DNA, Henry Lee estimated that 50% of ALL crime scene DNA was irrelevant. And that was when they needed a good-sized sample. You'll have to excuse me, but I find it hard to believe that a method that only needs one or two skin cells is going to hit the bullseye after ten years!

Right now, there's no way of knowing for sure where it came from, how it got there, or even how old it is.

THAT's how!

Thanks to Mary Lacy, you've got skin cells in two places on the longjohns that match more genetic material mixed with assault blood. Where is the assumption here?

Where? The idea that it's a match. The idea that it could only have been left in one way. That'll do for a start.

9 markers? Isn't that like one in 10,000 that it is not owned by the same person?

I don't know the exact odds. But even then, how many of those 9 markers are stutters?

Dont bet your life against those odds brother.

I wouldn't bet my life ON it, either.

Please remember that this could've been honest DNA that could've matched someone tested, but it didnt.

I have not forgotten.

If RDI was correct then there was nothing preventing this innocent DNA from simply matching a known bystander. Why is this innocent DNA owner so evasive?

Any NUMBER of reasons, HOTYH. And I'm glad you mentioned it!

 

[Ames]

There was not a substantial quantity (or quality) of ANY DNA found under her fingernails. AND the person who assaulted her (maybe the same person who killed her) did not leave those skin cells anywhere else, including the items used in the crime (tape and paintbrush and cord).
There IS a photo of the paintbrush handle that shows the word "Korea" printed on it.

You know, I find it so idiotic....that some IDI's actually believe that the SFF was Korean...just because Patsy's paintbrush was broken at both ends...with the word Korea in the middle....now that is grasping at straws. I believe that someone stepped on it, and it just happen to break like that. The ends are thinner anyway..so of course the middle is going to be left intact....regardless of what is written on it. It could have just as easily said..."Made with pride in the USA".

 

[Ames]

The pink pajama bottoms were about to be discussed with Patsy but her attorney intervened...

20 TOM HANEY: Okay. And just real briefly,

21 this was, is 91KKY23, and this would have been

22 taken Christmas morning and that's where the

23 children would have been dressed that morning

24 and had slept Christmas Eve.

25 TRIP DeMUTH: And the main reason we wanted

0533

1 to show you that, actually you've already

2 answered the question, early on we saw the pink

3 top in the bed, right?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nods head in the

5 affirmative.)

6 TRIP DeMUTH: And you had remembered her

7 wearing that.

8 PATSY RAMSEY: I would like to have a copy

9 of that sometime.

10 TOM HANEY: Your call.

11 MR. BURKE: I think we should break.

12 TRIP DeMUTH: I'll get you a copy of that.

13 TOM HANEY: It's 12:01 and we'll go off the

14 tape.

15 (Recess was taken.)

You know...it's kinda "funny" how when something that is very important to this case comes up in an interview...either Patsy or her attorney wants to take a stinking break...and then the subject is NEVER brought up again. This ALSO happened when Patsy is shown the red turtleneck...she breaks down, and starts to cry...then wants to take a break. When they return, the interview continues...but the red turtleneck is never again mentioned. It's like they forgot where they left off or something. You know..the PJ bottoms and the red turtleneck....JB's clothing....are kinda of important in a murder case. You just don't forget to bring that sort of stuff back up in an interview. They totally screwed up and dropped the ball. Shame, shame on them!!!!!


22 THOMAS HANEY: Number 18?

23 TRIP DeMUTH: How about the red

24 item in the upper right-hand corner?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's a

0266

1 little turtleneck, a little cotton turtleneck,

2 and I had wanted her to wear it to the Whites

3 and she didn't want to wear it.

4 TRIP DeMUTH: How did it end up

5 there?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Don't remember. A

7 crown. Oh, God.

8 THOMAS HANEY: It's about 10:25.

9 Do you want to take about a ten-minute break,

10 how's that sound? We will come back.

11 PATSY RAMSEY: (Crying.) (INAUDIBLE

12 RESPONSE.)

13 (Recess taken.)

 

[BBB167893]

You know...it's kinda "funny" how when something that is very important to this case comes up in an interview...either Patsy or her attorney wants to take a stinking break...and then the subject is NEVER brought up again. This ALSO happened when Patsy is shown the red turtleneck...she breaks down, and starts to cry...then wants to take a break. When they return, the interview continues...but the red turtleneck is never again mentioned. It's like they forgot where they left off or something. You know..the PJ bottoms and the red turtleneck....JB's clothing....are kinda of important in a murder case. You just don't forget to bring that sort of stuff back up in an interview. They totally screwed up and dropped the ball. Shame, shame on them!!!!!



22 THOMAS HANEY: Number 18?

23 TRIP DeMUTH: How about the red

24 item in the upper right-hand corner?

25 PATSY RAMSEY: I think it's a

0266

1 little turtleneck, a little cotton turtleneck,

2 and I had wanted her to wear it to the Whites

3 and she didn't want to wear it.

4 TRIP DeMUTH: How did it end up

5 there?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Don't remember. A

7 crown. Oh, God.

8 THOMAS HANEY: It's about 10:25.

9 Do you want to take about a ten-minute break,

10 how's that sound? We will come back.

11 PATSY RAMSEY: (Crying.) (INAUDIBLE

12 RESPONSE.)

13 (Recess taken.)

They SHOULD be ashamed!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

We've been over that a few dozen times, at LEAST!

1) Because human DNA is EVERYWHERE;

2) and this factors in with #1, the more sensitive DNA testing methods get, the more they're going to pick up DNA that is irrelevant. heck, even BEFORE touch DNA, Henry Lee estimated that 50% of ALL crime scene DNA was irrelevant. And that was when they needed a good-sized sample. You'll have to excuse me, but I find it hard to believe that a method that only needs one or two skin cells is going to hit the bullseye after ten years!

Right now, there's no way of knowing for sure where it came from, how it got there, or even how old it is.

THAT's how!



Where? The idea that it's a match. The idea that it could only have been left in one way. That'll do for a start.



I don't know the exact odds. But even then, how many of those 9 markers are stutters?



I wouldn't bet my life ON it, either.



I have not forgotten.



Any NUMBER of reasons, HOTYH. And I'm glad you mentioned it!

This is obviously just a feeble attempt at randomizing something that is inherently nonrandom: three matching trace deposits of DNA in the key locations.

Good luck making these three (3) matching deposits, found exactly where criminal forensics were hoping to find this exact type of evidence, appear random and innocent. It might work on the uninformed, but is this something to be proud of?

We should all appreciate the labwork and other effort in finding of this DNA in three places. It is good news for anyone who is truly interested in justice. I certainly dont get this good news impression from most RDI. Instead they are ready to simply cast it aside as degraded dust that everyone has on them and thereby wantonly dismissing the possiblity it is owned by JBR's killer.

The mischaracterization is uninformed at best, willfully or even dangerously ignorant at worst.

 

[otg]

Seems there was a lot of discussion while I was away about the size of the “Bloomies” on JonBenet when she was found dead. Were they simply too big, or were they way too big. From Murriflower (TY, Murri), the Bloomingdale size chart has height and weight guidelines.

According to the AR, JB was 47” tall, and weighed 45 pounds. By that, she would wear a size 6, or maybe even a size 6x, for some “growing room” (as my mom always called it).

But from Patsy’s interview with investigators:

Q. (By Mr. Kane) 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?
A. I have become aware of that, yes.
Q. And how did you become aware of that?
A. Something I read, I am sure.
Q. And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept -
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. -- where you were describing that they were just put in that drawer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay? Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was six years old?
A. I would say more like six to eight. (otg: But out of the 15 pair, there were no 8’s in the drawer.) There were probably some in there that were too small. (otg: I’d buy that the 4’s were too small, but they were still in the drawer.)
Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
A. Not typically, no.
​

At another point in the interview:Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds; correct?

A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. She was six years old?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. What size underpants would you normally buy for her? A. 8 to 10. (otg: I’d call that “hedging” -- big time. She would “normally” buy 8 to 10, and yet everything in JB’s panty drawer was either 4 or 6?)
​

So the Bloomies found on JB were packaged as fitting sizes 12 to 14. That would mean they were for a girl between 56 to 60 inches tall, and weighing between 84 and 96 pounds, or about twice the weight of JB at 45 pounds.

Here is a picture of the two sizes of Bloomies for comparison from the poster Jayelles (from Scotland!) at FFJ (from the link given earlier on this thread):

This also is interesting in the interviews...

Q. (By Mr. Levin) Okay. What we are trying to understand is whether -- we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it.
A. I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on.
​

From the same thread on FFJ, the Bloomies package comes in a zippered see-thru plastic bag. The bag is sealed with a plastic tie-wrap that affixes the label to the zipper and a loop at the end of the bag.

...and at another point in the interview:

Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm sorry. Do you recall making a decision then not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet express an interest in them; therefore, you didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game.
​

So let me see if I got this all straight. The size 12 to 14 Bloomies were opened by JonBenet, placed in her panty drawer by Patsy and were therefore “free game”, but yet the remainder of the package wasn’t there when BPD confiscated the other fifteen pairs of size 4 and 6 that were there, even though Patsy “normally” bought sizes 8 to 10. Have I got all that right? Oh, yeah. The rest of the unworn package of Bloomies showed up later in Atlanta?

Right.
.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Seems there was a lot of discussion while I was away about the size of the “Bloomies” on JonBenet when she was found dead. Were they simply too big, or were they way too big. From Murriflower (TY, Murri), the Bloomingdale size chart has height and weight guidelines. .

You're right. I can't find it anywhere stated she was found in oversize underwear. Ardnt didnt say it, Smit didn't say it, Meyer didn't say it. Not even the interrogating liars said it. Not explicitly.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

SD added a quote from ST's book about it, but it doesn't explicitly state she was found wearing oversize underwear. SD provided only partial sentences from the book, for some reason.

I'm kinda wondering why Dr. Meyer would tell everyone about the Wednesday detail and the Korea detail but omit the detail that the underwear was twice her size!

Why cant I find Smit, Ardnt, or Dr. Meyer explicitly stating oversize underwear was found on her?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's been said a lot on here lately. I don't know that it is, but it's hard to get an idea of the size without some bench mark to compare it with.

Let's just say that the blanket was wrapped around JBR, with her head/shoulders and feet sticking out. Those two folds on the blanket in the foreground is where her legs were. So do you still think it's too big?

I'll check it out further but another forum post has JR explaining to LA that JBR was found underneath a blanket.

 

[otg]

You're right. I can't find it anywhere stated she was found in oversize underwear. Ardnt didnt say it, Smit didn't say it, Meyer didn't say it. Not even the interrogating liars said it. Not explicitly.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

SD added a quote from ST's book about it, but it doesn't explicitly state she was found wearing oversize underwear. SD provided only partial sentences from the book, for some reason.

I'm kinda wondering why Dr. Meyer would tell everyone about the Wednesday detail and the Korea detail but omit the detail that the underwear was twice her size!

Why cant I find Smit, Ardnt, or Dr. Meyer explicitly stating oversize underwear was found on her?

"Interrogating liars"? Excuse me? Are you stating what the investigators were doing?

As for not saying it explicitly enough, what is this?

Q. (By Mr. Kane) 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?
​

How much more explicit would you want it?

The exact quote that SuperDave referenced can be found here (in fact, you can read most of the book here).

As for why Smit, Arndt, or Dr. Meyer did not proclaim publicly the size of the Bloomies, I can only speculate (and that's all it is):

Smit: Didn't fit with his theory, so it was of no value to him to make it a part of his presentation.

Arndt: Maybe she didn't "see" it when she looked into John's eyes, and therefore didn't feel it was worth mentioning on GMA.

Dr. Meyer: Maybe he didn't realize, while doing the autopsy, just how large they were. I mean, I'm not sure of procedures as far as removing clothing, etc. Were the longjohns pulled off together with the Bloomies and bagged for evidence, and therefore not included in his notes on the body? Perhaps when he examined them, since they were no longer on her, he didn't realize just how large they were in relation to JB. Or is this just something else that was overlooked on his part, or possibly even left out because of ineptitude? I don't know. But you won't hear anything from him, because he simply will not talk about it publicly.
.
​

 

[MurriFlower]

You're right. I can't find it anywhere stated she was found in oversize underwear. Ardnt didnt say it, Smit didn't say it, Meyer didn't say it. Not even the interrogating liars said it. Not explicitly.

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

SD added a quote from ST's book about it, but it doesn't explicitly state she was found wearing oversize underwear. SD provided only partial sentences from the book, for some reason.

I'm kinda wondering why Dr. Meyer would tell everyone about the Wednesday detail and the Korea detail but omit the detail that the underwear was twice her size!

Why cant I find Smit, Ardnt, or Dr. Meyer explicitly stating oversize underwear was found on her?

TY otg for the pics of the panties. I think the size difference is exaggerated. The larger look as if they would fit an adult. Perhaps they are ladies size 12-14.

Size 6 - Waist 22
Size 12 - waist 25.5

3.5" or 1/6th larger

Size 6 - back-waist 10.5
Size 12 - back - waist 13.5

2" or 1/5th larger

Here is a rough measurement of the two:

so the larger pair look about the same as the 1/4 of the smaller pants.

The small pants size 6 should be 22" around the waist or 11" across, divided by 2 = 5.5" divided again by 2 = 2.75". This means the larger panties are 2.75" x 2 wider around the waist = 5.5" (not the 3.5" that Bloomingdales say that their size 12's are larger than size 6).

You can do your own measurements on the length. If the back measurement between the two is 1/5th larger in the size 12 panties, then again it is much larger than you would expect. I think the sizes in these pictures (one or both) are incorrect.

Hopefully this will put the "oversized panties" myth to bed for ever!!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"Interrogating liars"? Excuse me? Are you stating what the investigators were doing?

As for not saying it explicitly enough, what is this?

Q. (By Mr. Kane) 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?
​

How much more explicit would you want it?

The exact quote that SuperDave referenced can be found here (in fact, you can read most of the book here).

As for why Smit, Arndt, or Dr. Meyer did not proclaim publicly the size of the Bloomies, I can only speculate (and that's all it is):

Smit: Didn't fit with his theory, so it was of no value to him to make it a part of his presentation.

Arndt: Maybe she didn't "see" it when she looked into John's eyes, and therefore didn't feel it was worth mentioning on GMA.

Dr. Meyer: Maybe he didn't realize, while doing the autopsy, just how large they were. I mean, I'm not sure of procedures as far as removing clothing, etc. Were the longjohns pulled off together with the Bloomies and bagged for evidence, and therefore not included in his notes on the body? Perhaps when he examined them, since they were no longer on her, he didn't realize just how large they were in relation to JB. Or is this just something else that was overlooked on his part, or possibly even left out because of ineptitude? I don't know. But you won't hear anything from him, because he simply will not talk about it publicly.
.
​

Dr. Meyer notes Wednesday and KOREA but fails to note inappropriate clothing. Yeah right.

I honestly didn't realize the oversize underwear was such a partisan issue. It seems that RDI clamours on this, obviously to support an argument of inappropriateness. I only wish there was a reliable source. Seems RDI has your typical RDI sources: highly motivated interrogations commonly known for their lies, or profiteers.

I'm not sure oversize underwear adds to or subtracts from parent culpability if JBR 'wanted' to wear them and if the size difference wasn't as bad as that poster's siggy mischaracterizes them.

 

[claudicici]

no murry,ladie's size 12-14 are HUGE ,there's no way those are lady's size.Youth size 12-14 will fit a average sized 12 year old girl to a small 14 year old girl.Not an average size 6 year old girl.
here's an adult size panty chart