No intruder?

[MurriFlower]

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.

I can see you haven't kept up on the myth that has built up around the size 12's LOL.

The theory is that these panties were found wrapped in the WC put on her by the murderer and her 'normal' sized panties (bloodied/soiled) removed and then taken from the house by a third party. Why this adds to the RDI theory is that they ask themselves 'who but a parent would redress' and 'who else but PR knew they were there', and 'who but PP or BR would have removed them', thus adding to their 'totallity of evidence' against the Rs. Then there is the interviews where the cops have supposedly not found the remaining 6 pairs of size 12's and the R's didn't turn them over for 12-18 months (although I'd wonder why they would at all if were they guilty), but this to RDI proves the R's lied about them. I think it is more likely the cops lied about them being extraordinarily large, about looking for the remaining size 12's, and about asking the R's to produce them. I'd be smiling smugly or LOL, if this supposed 'missing evidence' against the R's just simply turned up after having been packed by the removalists, proving the cops didn't look for them at all. If the R's deliberately withheld them to hide their guilt, they aren't going to just give them up some time later, are they?

You are absolutely right. The panties were not an issue. The answer is probably exactly as PR said. The panties were just used by JBR and were not excessively large, certainly not flogging her knees or falling off. No size 6's were removed and she wasn't redressed by the murderer. If her panties and longjohns were pulled down and back up after, that doesn't necessarily require a parent or mean and IDI could not have done this. They need not have been stripped off at all to perform a digital penetration.

 

[claudicici]

TRIP DeMUTH: How did it end up

5 there?

6 PATSY RAMSEY: Don't remember. A

7 crown. Oh, God.

I wonder what the crown has to do with the turtleneck,or JB not wanting to wear the turtleneck?What is so shocking to PR here that she has to take a break?

 

[Agatha_C]

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.

(My bold)

22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
23 package of the -- they came in a package of
24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
25 I think I bought a package to give to my

0081
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny Davis.
4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a matter of fact --

0082
1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a
2 matter --
3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old
4 child?
5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
6 a matter of fact.
0082
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your
18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;
19 correct?
20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
21 Q. She was six years old?
22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.



He stated it as fact to LW.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

(My bold)

22 A. Well, I think that I bought a
23 package of the -- they came in a package of
24 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
25 I think I bought a package to give to my

0081
1 niece.
2 Q. Which niece was that?
3 A. Jenny Davis.
4 Q. They came in, if you recall, do
5 you remember that they come in kind of a
6 plastic see-through plastic container.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. They are rolled up?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So if I understand you correctly,
11 you bought one package for Jenny Davis, your
12 niece, and one for JonBenet?
13 A. I am not sure if I bought one or
14 two.
15 Q. Do you remember what size they
16 were?
17 A. Not exactly.
18 Q. JonBenet was found wearing the
19 Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your
20 understanding is correct, that is a fact, you
21 can accept that as a fact, when she was
22 found murdered. Those underpants do not fit
23 her. Were you aware of that?
24 MR. WOOD: Are you stating that
25 as a matter of fact --

0082
1 MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a
2 matter --
3 MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old
4 child?
5 MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as
6 a matter of fact.
0082
17 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, your
18 daughter weighed, I believe, 45 pounds;
19 correct?
20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
21 Q. She was six years old?
22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
23 Q. What size underpants would you
24 normally buy for her?
25 A. 8 to 10.



He stated it as fact to LW.

Theres a subjectivity to these remarks. It makes them seem a little open, doesn't it? Why not 'hey we found her in size 12 underwear, whats up with that?' Instead its 'they dont fit her'. This is highly subjective, which makes it more of a game of words really. I can state as fact that I have some shoes that dont fit me. I sometimes wear them anyway. It could be a trick on the part of a highly motivated person.

My guess is that interrogators attempted to steamroll the R's with misinformation on the underwear and shirt fibers. See if that would stir them up. Thats why we dont have crime scene photos of JBR in her oversize underwear, or fiber expert testimony or reports. That leaves this open to verbal jousting with plausible deniability not clarity. Do you really think these interrogators want clarity? Thats why no photos or reports. "We believe those fibers are from your shirt..." instead of "here is the lab report and expert testimony which states fibers consistent with your shirt are inside the underwear."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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".

Put on your IDI hat, if only for a minute:

The handwriting squiggles are a carryover trait of an ESL who normally writes in Korean. Thats why all those rounded corners are all squared off, like the 'b' in 'attache to the bank'. Have a look, its possibly true and you dont factually know why its squared off do you.

I believe you have unanswered questions on the garrote handle. What was the criteria for selecting an object to use? Was it size, diameter, something else? Why a paintbrush? Why that paintbrush? Why break it twice? An intruder would have the run of the house. Why did the intruder seem go out of their way for that object? Was it because it would commemorate Korea?

What does SBTC stand for? Why Dec 25? The SBTC postscript and the choice of Dec 25 can also be commemorations of some sort.

How come you dont know a lot of stuff and are calling other possible ideas idiotic?

 

[MurriFlower]

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

Ok, well the US ladies size 12 is somewhat bigger than Aus size 12, but I still believe that one or the other is not the correct size (according to the Bloomies chart). Do you not agree that the pictures provided demonstrate a size difference greater than you would expect for garments with the measurements that I provided?? That is, if the smaller ones are Bloomies size 6, then the larger ones are at least 5" larger in the waist and at least 4" longer from waist to crotch. And if that is the case, they are much larger than girls size 12 panties from Bloomies.

 

[UKGuy]

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.)

Toltec,

Sure is frustrating. I guess from BPD perpsective they had more pressing questions to ask?

I rate the pink pajama bottoms along with the missing size-6 underwear as potential forensic evidence and this may be why we have been told nothing about them?

Also since JonBenet is photographed wearing the pink top and bottoms on the morning of the 25th, and the top is later discovered on JonBenet's bed, why would the bottoms have been left in Burke's room?

Occam's razor suggests that at some point JonBenet prior to her death JonBenet wore the missing size-6's and the pink bottoms. Which were subsequently contaminated with forensic evidence so they were made to vanish?


.

 

[SunnieRN]

HOTYH, please know that I do not doubt that the paintbrush said Korea. I do believe I have seen it as well. My point was that you seem to believe anything this coroner said and nothing LE said. They were not lying about everything and it has been proven on at least one thing. The panties were very big on JonBenet and they could not have known that unless she was wearing them. Patsy admits it, don't you believe her? You will need a calculator to calculate the odds of LE making that up and lucking up with it being true. I believe the odds would be astronomical, you probably can't find one with that many digits.

Becky, Becky, Becky, did you forget that the IDI's on this board say PATSY NEVER LIED?! ;-)

The IDI's therefore HAVE to believe that the underwear was too big. After all, Patsy said it and PATSY NEVER LIES.:floorlaugh:

 

[Ames]

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.
.

Patsy was such a liar....she only said that JB normally would wear a size 8-10, only because she was trying to make the 12-14 Bloomies not seem so strange. (Like they were only ONE size too big....not THREE!)

 

[Ames]

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

In John's interview....try reading it....he said that she was...and I quote..."Wrapped lovingly in a blanket...papoose style". This means her feet would have been wrapped too.

 

[Ames]

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!!

How many grown women do you know that would wear "Days of the week" panties????

 

[Ames]

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!!

LOL...keep on hoping. Did you even LOOK at the size chart. Those panties that JB was found in were THREE sizes too BIG!! My daughter, at 6 years old...was the same size as JB...if I had of put a pair of size 12-14 panties on her, they would have fallen to her knees.

 

[Ames]

Put on your IDI hat, if only for a minute:

The handwriting squiggles are a carryover trait of an ESL who normally writes in Korean. Thats why all those rounded corners are all squared off, like the 'b' in 'attache to the bank'. Have a look, its possibly true and you dont factually know why its squared off do you.

I believe you have unanswered questions on the garrote handle. What was the criteria for selecting an object to use? Was it size, diameter, something else? Why a paintbrush? Why that paintbrush? Why break it twice? An intruder would have the run of the house. Why did the intruder seem go out of their way for that object? Was it because it would commemorate Korea?

What does SBTC stand for? Why Dec 25? The SBTC postscript and the choice of Dec 25 can also be commemorations of some sort.

How come you dont know a lot of stuff and are calling other possible ideas idiotic?

I do apologize for using the word idiotic....that is such a strong word....but, at the time, I couldn't think of any other word to use. Sorry...

 

[Ames]

Ok, well the US ladies size 12 is somewhat bigger than Aus size 12, but I still believe that one or the other is not the correct size (according to the Bloomies chart). Do you not agree that the pictures provided demonstrate a size difference greater than you would expect for garments with the measurements that I provided?? That is, if the smaller ones are Bloomies size 6, then the larger ones are at least 5" larger in the waist and at least 4" longer from waist to crotch. And if that is the case, they are much larger than girls size 12 panties from Bloomies.

The pictures were overlayed...it is hard to tell by simply looking at that picture. I go by the size chart...and waist size. No doubt that those bloomies would have fallen down around her ankles...the long johns were the only thing holding them up. And Patsy knows that JB did NOT put those on herself. She had a whole drawer of ones that actually fit....AND she would have had to cut the tie on it.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Don't give me that! You only WISH it was a "feeble attempt at randomizing." HOTYH, I've seen enough feeble attempts at randomizing things around here to know it when I see it, okay? It's true, and you know it.

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.

I don't NEED luck. You, on the other hand, could use some.

It might work on the uninformed, but is this something to be proud of?

You are SERIOUSLY trying my patience, friend. If nothing else, this is a major case of the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone trawls for the uninformed, it's IDI. In fact, they COUNT on it. So let me ask you guys: are YOU proud of it?

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.

Maybe it is, but that's basically the point I'm trying to make: these new forensic testing methods are only useful if the people know how to use them responsibly. The greater the power, the greater the need for circumspection. And that's precisely the problem here, where it's not used to seek justice, but used the way a magician uses sleight-of-hand: as a distraction, a means of diverting attention. Putting this power in Mary Lacy's hands was like giving a five-year-old the keys to an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

HOTYH, if that's your idea of "justice," you can have it! The whole stinking mess of it.

I certainly dont get this good news impression from most RDI.

Very perceptive.

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.

It's not wanton, HOTYH. Much as you'd like to think it is, we actually have our REASONS for doing it.

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

That remark is beneath consideration. I'll do you a favor and pretend I didn't read it.

So let me end by saying this: IDI's reasons for betting the farm on the DNA are obvious: because it's all they HAVE. But if you're not secure enough in your own theory to see the problems with it, we have nothing to talk about!

 

[BBB167893]

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 gave you what there WAS, HOTYH. I'm still looking.

 

[BBB167893]

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

Relax, otg. I might get upset, too, if it weren't so patently false. It may work on the uninformed, but not ME.

How much more explicit would you want it?

That would be my question, too.

 

[BBB167893]

Seems RDI has your typical RDI sources: highly motivated interrogations commonly known for their lies

Excuse me! If you have any evidence that Michael Kane, Bruce Levin or Mitch Morrissey have an established record of violating the ethics code, breaking the law or anything else that would prove your claim about how they are "known for their lies" or somehow have an ax to grind with the Rs, PLEASE do not keep it to yourself!

 

[BBB167893]

If the R's deliberately withheld them to hide their guilt, they aren't going to just give them up some time later, are they?

Depends on the advice they were being given.

 

[BBB167893]

Theres a subjectivity to these remarks. It makes them seem a little open, doesn't it? Why not 'hey we found her in size 12 underwear, whats up with that?' Instead its 'they dont fit her'. This is highly subjective, which makes it more of a game of words really. I can state as fact that I have some shoes that dont fit me. I sometimes wear them anyway. It could be a trick on the part of a highly motivated person.

My guess is that interrogators attempted to steamroll the R's with misinformation on the underwear and shirt fibers. See if that would stir them up. Thats why we dont have crime scene photos of JBR in her oversize underwear, or fiber expert testimony or reports. That leaves this open to verbal jousting with plausible deniability not clarity. Do you really think these interrogators want clarity? Thats why no photos or reports. "We believe those fibers are from your shirt..." instead of "here is the lab report and expert testimony which states fibers consistent with your shirt are inside the underwear."

I'm calling BS on that. ALL of it. Even a first-year law student knows you don't give evidence like that over to a suspect, and especially not to a lawyer who's not even a defense attorney!