No intruder?

[BBB167893]

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:

Yeah, I must have forgotten it too!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

[/color]

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...

Apology accepted.

Given what you know, and the effort you've made to find out what you don't, I can understand why other ideas would appear idiotic to you.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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!

my bold

Evidence like what? Far as I'm concerned somebody forgot to take pictures of JBR in her underwear, and there's no fiber expert testimony. The claims that JBR was found in underwear twice her size, and the fibers matched JR's shirt are hearsay at best, lies at worst. I'd say they are lies.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Speaking of lies, has anyone else seen a photo of the paintbrush showing KOREA on it?

 

[BOESP]

Speaking of lies, has anyone else seen a photo of the paintbrush showing KOREA on it?

HOTYH the word KOREA on the paintbrush seems to be significant to you. A great many bristle-type brushes are manufactured in Korea. The brush seems significant to me but not the word Korea. Could you please explain why in your opinion that word is important to this case. I've read your Korean man hypothesis but that idea doesn't survive even the closest shave by Occam's Razor.

 

[Agatha_C]

my bold

Evidence like what? Far as I'm concerned somebody forgot to take pictures of JBR in her underwear, and there's no fiber expert testimony. The claims that JBR was found in underwear twice her size, and the fibers matched JR's shirt are hearsay at best, lies at worst. I'd say they are lies.

(My bold)


http://www.acandyrose.com/t-and-k-mail.htm
ACandyRose Internet Subculture
and the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case
www.acandyrose.com

FIFTH CALL: (July 4, 2006 11:00 AM) "The fifth telephone call placed by Michael Tracey occurred on July 4,2006 (Tuesday) at approximately 11:00 am. Mountain Standard Time. Michael Tracey placed the telephone call from telephone number 303-735-0021 at the University of Colorado's School of Journalism and Mass Communication located in Boulder, Colorado, United States of America. The call was received at telephone number 66-79770681. The call was approximately 100 minutes in duration. The voices on the telephone were that of Michael Tracey and DAXIS. No other voices were heard.

The person receiving the call answered the phone as DAXIS. During this telephone call DAXIS explained his entry into the Ramsey residence located in Boulder, Colorado, Unites States of America on Christmas night, December 25,1996. DAXIS explained that he removed an exterior metal grate covering a lower level window well. Upon removal of the metal grate, DAXIS opened a basement level window and entered into the residence by way of the window. As he entered into the window DAXIS stated that he placed the metal grate back over the window well covering. DAXIS explained that he brought rope for the ligatures and garrote with him. He remained in the home for an unspecified amount of time prior to the arrival of the Ramsey family. DAXIS said he recalled hearing the garage door open and the Ramsey vehicle being driven into the garage area. He recalled hearing John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey enter into the residence. He recalled hearing footsteps on an upper level stairwell leading to JonBenet’s bedroom.

DAXIS said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenet’s bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair. DAXIS obtained rope he brought with him and formed ligatures, which he tied, around the wrist area of JonBenet. The same type of rope was placed around the ankles of JonBenet. He used the same type of rope to form a garrote, which he placed, around the throat area of JonBenet. DAXIS provided a detailed account of the manipulation of the garrote around the throat area of JonBenet. DAXIS explained how he tightened the garrote until JonBenet was nearly unconscious and then released pressure on the garrote allowing her to regain consciousness. He continued this procedure on more than one occasion however on the last such attempt, JonBenet did not regain consciousness.

DAXIS said he was concerned that JonBenet may be suffering because of "twitching" that he observed therefore he struck her in the head with a flashlight. DAXIS said he removed the light colored pajamas that JonBenet was wearing and also removed underwear she was wearing. He described the underwear as "knickers". Repeatedly throughout this telephone conversation DAXIS referred to the underwear worn by JonBenet as "her knickers". DAXIS advised Michael Tracey that he removed the "knickers" from JonBenet and took the item with him after he left the Ramsey residence by way of the same point that he entered into the home. DAXIS added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by DAXIS was several sizes too large for JonBenet. DAXES mentioned that the oversized underwear also bore the day of "Wednesday".

It should be noted that at the time of discovery JonBenet Ramsey at the lower level of her residence, she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female. The underwear bore the day name of "Wednesday". The telephone call between Michael Tracey and DAXIS was recorded by way of an audiocassette-recording device." (Ref: AFFIDAVIT FOR ARREST WARRANT JOHN MARK KARR, Pg61,62)

On page 62 of the arrest warrant for JMK it states as fact, that she was wearing undies to big for her. The Rs entire spin team seemed to be real excited about the big panty issue...

So tell me again, why we are arguing this? If its stated as fact on legal documents and the Rs and their team of people believe it to be fact, than I have to wonder at the real reason for arguing this.... It was even posted by an IDI poster on FFJ a Miss Marples that it was stated as fact on page 62 of JMK arrest warrant and that a despicable IDI kept removing the info Miss Marples was posting on another site (Yes Marples is a man for those that dont know). Again, you have to wonder why?

 

[SunnieRN]

Agatha, thank you very much!:clap::dance:

I fear however that arguments may still prevail, despite the overwhelming evidence that everyone provided.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH the word KOREA on the paintbrush seems to be significant to you. A great many bristle-type brushes are manufactured in Korea. The brush seems significant to me but not the word Korea. Could you please explain why in your opinion that word is important to this case. I've read your Korean man hypothesis but that idea doesn't survive even the closest shave by Occam's Razor.

Oh no. And I so wanted to impress you and Occam's Razor's edge.

 

[DeeDee249]

JB's panties were Bloomingdale's own brand (Bloomies) of CHILDREN'S cotton panties- printed flowers on a white background with days of the week on the waistband. Girls's sizes in this country for panties start with the Toddler size
2-4 (a child from 2-4 years of age) and go up to 12-14 with some brands offering a size 16 (child) for heavier girls. The sizes in kids undies tends to be along the line of their ages, whereas women's sizes are not. Panties that JB wore, according to Patsy, were size 6-8 which are meant to fit a child around 6-8 years old. Jenny was about 12, so the size 12-14 were just right for her.

Ladies' panties of size 12 would be considered plus size, and fit a woman well over 150-200 pounds.

Did anyone else notice that Patsy said she meant to put Jenny's panties in a box along with other gifts ?
Fits right in with those "partially wrapped" boxes, doesn't it?

 

[BOESP]

Oh no. And I so wanted to impress you and Occam's Razor's edge.

Well, you've failed miserably on both counts.

 

[MurriFlower]

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.

I am telling you that the sizes (one or both) of the panties pictured is incorrect. It is perfectly obvious that there is a much larger variation in size than the Bloomies chart indicates there should be.

You are projecting your own ideas onto PR and stating them as facts. YOU have no idea what she knows. Tell me, if there was a whole drawer of ones that fit, then why would PR put on a pair which (you say) were obviously much too big? If this was the case, she would have known it would cast suspicion on her. She had all the time in the world to go back upstairs and get a pair of her usual panties from the drawer and put them on her, or send her husband up for them.

 

[MurriFlower]

(My bold)


http://www.acandyrose.com/t-and-k-mail.htm
ACandyRose Internet Subculture
and the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case
www.acandyrose.com

FIFTH CALL: (July 4, 2006 11:00 AM) "The fifth telephone call placed by Michael Tracey occurred on July 4,2006 (Tuesday) at approximately 11:00 am. Mountain Standard Time. Michael Tracey placed the telephone call from telephone number 303-735-0021 at the University of Colorado's School of Journalism and Mass Communication located in Boulder, Colorado, United States of America. The call was received at telephone number 66-79770681. The call was approximately 100 minutes in duration. The voices on the telephone were that of Michael Tracey and DAXIS. No other voices were heard.

The person receiving the call answered the phone as DAXIS. During this telephone call DAXIS explained his entry into the Ramsey residence located in Boulder, Colorado, Unites States of America on Christmas night, December 25,1996. DAXIS explained that he removed an exterior metal grate covering a lower level window well. Upon removal of the metal grate, DAXIS opened a basement level window and entered into the residence by way of the window. As he entered into the window DAXIS stated that he placed the metal grate back over the window well covering. DAXIS explained that he brought rope for the ligatures and garrote with him. He remained in the home for an unspecified amount of time prior to the arrival of the Ramsey family. DAXIS said he recalled hearing the garage door open and the Ramsey vehicle being driven into the garage area. He recalled hearing John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey enter into the residence. He recalled hearing footsteps on an upper level stairwell leading to JonBenet’s bedroom.

DAXIS said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenet’s bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair. DAXIS obtained rope he brought with him and formed ligatures, which he tied, around the wrist area of JonBenet. The same type of rope was placed around the ankles of JonBenet. He used the same type of rope to form a garrote, which he placed, around the throat area of JonBenet. DAXIS provided a detailed account of the manipulation of the garrote around the throat area of JonBenet. DAXIS explained how he tightened the garrote until JonBenet was nearly unconscious and then released pressure on the garrote allowing her to regain consciousness. He continued this procedure on more than one occasion however on the last such attempt, JonBenet did not regain consciousness.

DAXIS said he was concerned that JonBenet may be suffering because of "twitching" that he observed therefore he struck her in the head with a flashlight. DAXIS said he removed the light colored pajamas that JonBenet was wearing and also removed underwear she was wearing. He described the underwear as "knickers". Repeatedly throughout this telephone conversation DAXIS referred to the underwear worn by JonBenet as "her knickers". DAXIS advised Michael Tracey that he removed the "knickers" from JonBenet and took the item with him after he left the Ramsey residence by way of the same point that he entered into the home. DAXIS added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by DAXIS was several sizes too large for JonBenet. DAXES mentioned that the oversized underwear also bore the day of "Wednesday".

It should be noted that at the time of discovery JonBenet Ramsey at the lower level of her residence, she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female. The underwear bore the day name of "Wednesday". The telephone call between Michael Tracey and DAXIS was recorded by way of an audiocassette-recording device." (Ref: AFFIDAVIT FOR ARREST WARRANT JOHN MARK KARR, Pg61,62)

On page 62 of the arrest warrant for JMK it states as fact, that she was wearing undies to big for her. The Rs entire spin team seemed to be real excited about the big panty issue...

So tell me again, why we are arguing this? If its stated as fact on legal documents and the Rs and their team of people believe it to be fact, than I have to wonder at the real reason for arguing this.... It was even posted by an IDI poster on FFJ a Miss Marples that it was stated as fact on page 62 of JMK arrest warrant and that a despicable IDI kept removing the info Miss Marples was posting on another site (Yes Marples is a man for those that dont know). Again, you have to wonder why?

I have no argument that she was found in size 12 underwear. I maintain that they were not of such huge proportions as we are being led to believe, that they would have been flogging her knees or falling off her, but were larger than her correct size. Being new, they would have had firm elastic, so would not have been significantly larger than an old stretched pair of correct size for her age. Furthermore, I suggest that JBR put them on herself, and her normal panties were not removed and replaced by her murderer.

 

[MurriFlower]

JB's panties were Bloomingdale's own brand (Bloomies) of CHILDREN'S cotton panties- printed flowers on a white background with days of the week on the waistband. Girls's sizes in this country for panties start with the Toddler size
2-4 (a child from 2-4 years of age) and go up to 12-14 with some brands offering a size 16 (child) for heavier girls. The sizes in kids undies tends to be along the line of their ages, whereas women's sizes are not. Panties that JB wore, according to Patsy, were size 6-8 which are meant to fit a child around 6-8 years old. Jenny was about 12, so the size 12-14 were just right for her.

Ladies' panties of size 12 would be considered plus size, and fit a woman well over 150-200 pounds.

Did anyone else notice that Patsy said she meant to put Jenny's panties in a box along with other gifts ?
Fits right in with those "partially wrapped" boxes, doesn't it?

I posted the link to Bloomingdales own size chart. I understand that ladies sizes in US are different to here. I still think that the picture of the larger size panties would easily fit an adult, (no not a 150-200 pound one though LOL). I posted the superimposed sizes so all could see that the size variation between the two is much larger than Bloomies chart.

 

[Toltec]

I am telling you that the sizes (one or both) of the panties pictured is incorrect. It is perfectly obvious that there is a much larger variation in size than the Bloomies chart indicates there should be.

You are projecting your own ideas onto PR and stating them as facts. YOU have no idea what she knows. Tell me, if there was a whole drawer of ones that fit, then why would PR put on a pair which (you say) were obviously much too big? If this was the case, she would have known it would cast suspicion on her. She had all the time in the world to go back upstairs and get a pair of her usual panties from the drawer and put them on her, or send her husband up for them.

Give me a break! The panties JonBenet were found in were HUGE! JonBenet weighed 45 pounds at death and the panties were meant for a child weighing around 85 pounds.

Size 4 panties for a 4yo

Size 6 panties for a 6yo

Law Enforcment found size 4 panties (old ones) and size 6 panties (newer ones) in JonBenets panty drawer. No size 8, no size 10.

 

[Agatha_C]

These are standard US girls measurements:

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

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

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

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

1 I mean, if you have ever seen
2 these little panties, there is not too much
3 difference in the size. So, you know, I'm
4 sure even if they were a little bit big,
5 they were special because we got them up
6 there, she wanted to wear them, and they
7 didn't fall down around her ankles, that was
8 fine with me.

Okay Murri,

Lets look at it this way, can you wear undies that are two sizes too big or small? I have a 7 y/o and an 11 y/o no way can they share their panties and both are thin girls (healthy but thin)... I'm sticking with common sense instead of makes no sense and PR makes no sense with this crud.

Oh and Murri, I didnt gloss it over as I posted it for all to read, My bold was for the point that I myself was making in my post, or I would have had to bold everything and well that wouldnt have made sense now would it?

 

[UKGuy]

(My bold)


http://www.acandyrose.com/t-and-k-mail.htm
ACandyRose Internet Subculture
and the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Case
www.acandyrose.com

FIFTH CALL: (July 4, 2006 11:00 AM) "The fifth telephone call placed by Michael Tracey occurred on July 4,2006 (Tuesday) at approximately 11:00 am. Mountain Standard Time. Michael Tracey placed the telephone call from telephone number 303-735-0021 at the University of Colorado's School of Journalism and Mass Communication located in Boulder, Colorado, United States of America. The call was received at telephone number 66-79770681. The call was approximately 100 minutes in duration. The voices on the telephone were that of Michael Tracey and DAXIS. No other voices were heard.

The person receiving the call answered the phone as DAXIS. During this telephone call DAXIS explained his entry into the Ramsey residence located in Boulder, Colorado, Unites States of America on Christmas night, December 25,1996. DAXIS explained that he removed an exterior metal grate covering a lower level window well. Upon removal of the metal grate, DAXIS opened a basement level window and entered into the residence by way of the window. As he entered into the window DAXIS stated that he placed the metal grate back over the window well covering. DAXIS explained that he brought rope for the ligatures and garrote with him. He remained in the home for an unspecified amount of time prior to the arrival of the Ramsey family. DAXIS said he recalled hearing the garage door open and the Ramsey vehicle being driven into the garage area. He recalled hearing John Ramsey and Patricia Ramsey enter into the residence. He recalled hearing footsteps on an upper level stairwell leading to JonBenet’s bedroom.

DAXIS said he waited until he believed all occupants of the home were asleep then entered into JonBenet’s bedroom obtained her from her bed as she was sleeping and carried the sleeping child down a stairwell into a basement level room. Within the room JonBenet was placed on his lap and he spoke with her and stroked her hair. DAXIS obtained rope he brought with him and formed ligatures, which he tied, around the wrist area of JonBenet. The same type of rope was placed around the ankles of JonBenet. He used the same type of rope to form a garrote, which he placed, around the throat area of JonBenet. DAXIS provided a detailed account of the manipulation of the garrote around the throat area of JonBenet. DAXIS explained how he tightened the garrote until JonBenet was nearly unconscious and then released pressure on the garrote allowing her to regain consciousness. He continued this procedure on more than one occasion however on the last such attempt, JonBenet did not regain consciousness.

DAXIS said he was concerned that JonBenet may be suffering because of "twitching" that he observed therefore he struck her in the head with a flashlight. DAXIS said he removed the light colored pajamas that JonBenet was wearing and also removed underwear she was wearing. He described the underwear as "knickers". Repeatedly throughout this telephone conversation DAXIS referred to the underwear worn by JonBenet as "her knickers". DAXIS advised Michael Tracey that he removed the "knickers" from JonBenet and took the item with him after he left the Ramsey residence by way of the same point that he entered into the home. DAXIS added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by DAXIS was several sizes too large for JonBenet. DAXES mentioned that the oversized underwear also bore the day of "Wednesday".

It should be noted that at the time of discovery JonBenet Ramsey at the lower level of her residence, she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female. The underwear bore the day name of "Wednesday". The telephone call between Michael Tracey and DAXIS was recorded by way of an audiocassette-recording device." (Ref: AFFIDAVIT FOR ARREST WARRANT JOHN MARK KARR, Pg61,62)

On page 62 of the arrest warrant for JMK it states as fact, that she was wearing undies to big for her. The Rs entire spin team seemed to be real excited about the big panty issue...

So tell me again, why we are arguing this? If its stated as fact on legal documents and the Rs and their team of people believe it to be fact, than I have to wonder at the real reason for arguing this.... It was even posted by an IDI poster on FFJ a Miss Marples that it was stated as fact on page 62 of JMK arrest warrant and that a despicable IDI kept removing the info Miss Marples was posting on another site (Yes Marples is a man for those that dont know). Again, you have to wonder why?

Agatha_C,
Nice correspondence. Will it be accepted and acted upon, most intelligent people would.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

Okay Murri,

Lets look at it this way, can you wear undies that are two sizes too big or small? I have a 7 y/o and an 11 y/o no way can they share their panties and both are thin girls (healthy but thin)... I'm sticking with common sense instead of makes no sense and PR makes no sense with this crud.

Oh and Murri, I didnt gloss it over as I posted it for all to read, My bold was for the point that I myself was making in my post, or I would have had to bold everything and well that wouldnt have made sense now would it?

Well, this is the person who bought and saw these panties Agatha. She said
"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. " so I'll stick with her crud in preference to yours.

In answer to your other question about the size I wear, I would have thought most women would be aware they can wear a large range of sizes in underwear without them falling down. The most likely ones to fall down are old ones with stretched elastic, not new out of the box ones.

 

[Agatha_C]

Well, this is the person who bought and saw these panties Agatha. She said
"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. " so I'll stick with her crud in preference to yours.

In answer to your other question about the size I wear, I would have thought most women would be aware they can wear a large range of sizes in underwear without them falling down. The most likely ones to fall down are old ones with stretched elastic, not new out of the box ones.

Murri,

PR said she hadnt seen them on her, she herself did not put them on her so how would she know if they fell down or not. No Murri, we dont wear a wide variety of sizes or at least here in the US as I hear sizing is different in other countries, maybe in OZ a size 6/8 is really close to a 12/14... So any size 6 women out there that can wear a size 12 without it falling down?

 

[otg]

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.

Holdon, I didn’t realize you were British as well. May I ask... Oz? Kiwi? Scot? Paddy?

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.

Okay, since the reason the oversized Bloomies is an issue, the relevance of which seems to evade both of you, let me make it a little clearer, if I can. If OTOH, you already do understand, then the only defense of your position would be to cast doubt on the investigators asking the questions, or their reasons for doing so (“highly motivated interrogations commonly known for their lies, or profiteers”).

Let’s assume for a moment that JonBenet was actually found with undies that were way too large for her. This admittedly assumes that the coroner didn’t notice for some reason, or he just didn’t mention it in the AR. In either case, it wouldn’t be the first mistake he made that we know about. So the question is, why would JonBenet have these on? It could be she just liked them and put them on like Patsy offered in the interview. But there are a couple of problems with this which make it unlikely. First of all, I’m sure you can imagine how uncomfortable they would be all bunched up under whatever she was wearing over them (I’m not a girl, but even I can imagine this.). Secondly, Patsy said she couldn’t remember if she bought a second set for JonBenet while they were there in Bloomingdale’s, which I’m sure that had she expressed an interest in having them, she would have gotten them. But later, Patsy said that JonBenet had wanted that set purchased as a gift for Jenny Davis (she wanted a present bought for someone else?) as a memento from their trip to NYC. We know by Patsy’s own admission that she bought them in November from Bloomingdale’s in NYC for her niece who was at the time about 11 or 12. Even then, she tried to fudge by saying:

Q. Would these panties, size wise, be more appropriate for -- is she an older girl?
A. Yes.
Q. And I assume a larger girl?
A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a young woman, but then she was a little girl.
​

Then there is the problem with who opened them. It’s unlikely that JB opened that plastic bag as Patsy said initially, because of the plastic tie-wrap holding the zipper and tag in place. Later, Patsy says that she (Patsy) opened them and placed them in JB's pantie drawer.

So if Patsy’s version is not very likely, what would another possibility be, and to which one will you subscribe?

Consider the following:

• It’s unlikely that either Patsy or JonBenet would have selected the oversized Bloomies for her to wear to bed (and would it really have mattered to JB which day of the week it was?)
• It’s also unlikely that either of them would have chosen them to wear to the party at the Whites, and that then Patsy would not have noticed them when she prepared a sleeping JB for bed.
• PR and JR were both questioned about partially-opened presents in the basement.
• Regardless of what JB was sexually assaulted with, there would be blood, as evidenced by the remnants of blood in and around the vagina and in the panties she was wearing, and so noted during the autopsy.
• The remaining week of Bloomies was not taken for evidence during searches of the house, and they were not in JB’s drawers upstairs in her room.
• There is also a perhaps relevant matter of the missing pink PJ bottoms which, if worn during the assault, may have also had blood on them.
• Obviously because of the wiping of blood from her body and removal of clothing with blood on them, and possibly the disappearance of the end of the paintbrush and what it might mean, the sexual part of the crime was intended to be hidden. An intruder would not be foolish enough to stick around long enough to do all that was necessary to accomplish this. He would simply leave the crime scene “as is” and get the hell out of Dodge (not sure how that translates to British English).

So if the person doing this (IDI/RDI) wanted to change the underwear to the most easily accessible panties available, who would be more likely to know that there were some nearby panties right there in the basement to use instead of going back up two flights of stairs to find a pair in JB’s panty drawer? But all those available were marked with a day of the week. So in that person’s mind, the correct day of the week had to be selected so as not to arouse suspicion; and hence, the Wednesday pair was selected. All of which implicates Patsy in the selection process, because John would not have even known about them being wrapped and stored in the basement -- nor would any outsider. The only one who would know about them and open wrapped presents looking for them would be none other than Patsy.

Do you see now the relevance of the oversized Bloomies?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, here is where the pictures of the “model” wearing the size 12 - 14 came from, and how the poster developed his “model” (which he based on his 6-yo daughter who was the same height and weight as JB):
[ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7128"]Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet - Forums For Justice[/ame]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is Patsy trying to hedge her answers (with a little assistance from Lin Wood) to accommodate the evidence around the Bloomies:

Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time, how old was Jenny?
A. I don't know. Probably -- I don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but I don't know exactly how old she was.
Q. Would these panties, size wise, be more appropriate for -- is she an older girl?
A. Yes.
Q. And I assume a larger girl?
A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a young woman, but then she was a little girl.
Q. How old is she now?
A. She is now 15, I believe.
Q. So she would have been about 12 or somewhere --
A. 11.
Q. -- 11, 12?
A. Yeah.
Q. And based on the, I guess, dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about, these would have been a size appropriate for her?
A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
Q. And do they have age groups or are they suggested for like a 10-year-old through a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old through a 15-year-old? Do they do it that way too?
A. I never paid any attention if they do.
MR. MORRISSEY: Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Kane) Let me ask it this way. Did you say you bought more than one set of Bloomi's?
A. I can't remember.
Q. You bought some for JonBenet?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Why is it that you remember buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of 1996?
A. Because -- I remember that I -- and I, you know, we were kind of shopping around, and it was close to Christmas season, so we might pick up a little souvenir. I bought -- I think I picked up a little something for a baby-sitter, you know.
Q. Where was it that you became aware that this was -- where was it that it was made a big deal? What was the source of your information that Bloomingdale's panties somehow were significant that made you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy those?
MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise recollection of that event occurring where all of a sudden something happened and you decided it was some big deal?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I mean, my first thought is something in the tabloids, but, you know, they get everything wrong, so --
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. (WHAT? Patsy read the tabloids?)​

.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not sure about the oversize underwear JBR was allegedly wearing.

Are they a little oversize or a lot oversize? If they are a little oversize and JBR wanted them, then maybe its not even an issue. If they are a lot oversize then why dont they fall off when she stood up? How stupid is that? Why would Dr. Meyer write about trivial Korea and Wednesday and leave out important inappropriate item of clothing?

Something is not right with the whole story because nobody close to the investigation explicitly stated that JBR was found wearing inappropriate size 12 underwear. Lets hear from Linda Ardnt, Lou Smit, or Dr. Meyer on it.