No intruder?

[RTC]

(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.

I have never seen this info. PR , what a Big fat liar. I think it impossible for her not to remember if she bought JB a pair. and the ultimate lie is line 25. She knows she messed up bad by unwrapping the bloomies and putting them on her.
She is almost hilarious if it would not be so sad. She doesnt remember giving JB her last bath or cant account for her daughters undies or what is in her undie drawer? she cant remember what she put her daughter in when she got her ready for bed. Red turtleneck stories, soiled unders left to rot on floor while they vacation. This PR is truly a nut job. She did not deserve to be a mother.
I need to read Hodges book. I viewed the pageant photos in the other link and when you see them all together side by side and the progression of it, gives me a chill.

I think all the pieces are there to solve this crime. My compliments to newer members OTG and Agatha for really bringing light to how ridiculous the lies are. And these are not small lies. Your daughter has been murdered, beaten, strangled, touched in private places by an unknown assailant that stalked all of you.You and your remaining family obviously are still in immediate danger and this is all you got???? crazy. :furious:

Happy New Year Everyone!
All of us can make a difference.

 

[UKGuy]

You and your PIC Murri have claimed for a long time that all of the evidence the gov't presented is nothing but fabrications. I was simply reminding you that any prosecutor worth his weight in SPAM is not going to let the suspect have access to materials like that before trial.



My bold. "Far as you're concerned." Yeah, that about sums it up.



I have no doubt you would. You HAVE to. After all, it's all you've got.

SuperDave,

I have no doubt you would. You HAVE to. After all, it's all you've got.

Bullseye! No DNA, it was fabricated nay invented. No forensic evidence at all. No hairs , No semen, No sweat, No urine, No fecal matter, No fibers. Absolutely nothing zilch!

So IDI has to make stuff up.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I have never seen this info. PR , what a Big fat liar. I think it impossible for her not to remember if she bought JB a pair. and the ultimate lie is line 25. She knows she messed up bad by unwrapping the bloomies and putting them on her.
She is almost hilarious if it would not be so sad. She doesnt remember giving JB her last bath or cant account for her daughters undies or what is in her undie drawer? she cant remember what she put her daughter in when she got her ready for bed. Red turtleneck stories, soiled unders left to rot on floor while they vacation. This PR is truly a nut job. She did not deserve to be a mother.
I need to read Hodges book. I viewed the pageant photos in the other link and when you see them all together side by side and the progression of it, gives me a chill.

I think all the pieces are there to solve this crime. My compliments to newer members OTG and Agatha for really bringing light to how ridiculous the lies are. And these are not small lies. Your daughter has been murdered, beaten, strangled, touched in private places by an unknown assailant that stalked all of you.You and your remaining family obviously are still in immediate danger and this is all you got???? crazy. :furious:

Happy New Year Everyone!
All of us can make a difference.

RTC,

Nice aint it? This is where Patsy implicates herself directly in the death of her daughter.

So is she guilty of her death, or is she covering for Burke or John?


.

 

[MurriFlower]

Whatever...all I know is that JB wore a size 6-8...and the ones she was found wearing were size 12-14...that is actually THREE sizes too big for her. The sizes go like this...6-8, 8-10, 10-12, 12-14.....that is ...count them...three sizes too big. My theory is that it was pretty panicky in that house. JB was known to ask anybody and everybody to help wipe her when she went to the bathroom. So, just in case anybody had seen her size 6-8 Wednesday underwear that she actually had been wearing before...the larger Wednesday panties were placed on her after her death. I don't think that they really cared about the size at the time...just getting a pair of identical panties...except for the size of course...to place on her. I am sure that they didn't think that the size would be an issue....kinda of like the pineapple....or as Lou Smit (do you even know who HE is?) calls it...the "big bugaboo". IOW ...a big snare in the Ramsey story.

Ok, well, if you don't believe me, then believe the chart

notice how sizes are grouped together? So notice how S, M & L covers two sizes? Does this indicate that there would be much precision in the size of some garments? So now notice the age in years written on the bottom line. Size 12 is for girls 9-10 years (not 12 years as you have assumed). So now we are coming down from HUMUNGOUS to A BIT BIG. Really, you people must think I'm from Mars the way you try to BS me about stuff.

There's a big bugaboo here alright, but not in the R's story.

 

[stilettos]

Ok, well, if you don't believe me, then believe the chart

notice how sizes are grouped together? So notice how S, M & L covers two sizes? Does this indicate that there would be much precision in the size of some garments? So now notice the age in years written on the bottom line. Size 12 is for girls 9-10 years (not 12 years as you have assumed). So now we are coming down from HUMUNGOUS to A BIT BIG. Really, you people must think I'm from Mars the way you try to BS me about stuff.

There's a big bugaboo here alright, but not in the R's story.

Good Lord. There is a huge difference in small size changes per designers and little girls underpanties. The size differnce is huge....three sizes too large. Designers change womens clothing sizes per psych info that women prefer smaller sizes. Children do not figure into the size issue.:banghead:

 

[SunnieRN]

Ok, well, if you don't believe me, then believe the chart

notice how sizes are grouped together? So notice how S, M & L covers two sizes? Does this indicate that there would be much precision in the size of some garments? So now notice the age in years written on the bottom line. Size 12 is for girls 9-10 years (not 12 years as you have assumed). So now we are coming down from HUMUNGOUS to A BIT BIG. Really, you people must think I'm from Mars the way you try to BS me about stuff.

There's a big bugaboo here alright, but not in the R's story.

Yeppers, I see an enormous size difference between 6 an 12, which is how the bloomies were sized. I would not be comfortable in undies that were 8+ inches too large in the waist. Thank you for reposting the size chart so we can again see the size comparrison between the sizes. Six to 12 or even 6x to 12 is a huge difference.

 

[MurriFlower]

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”).

No on the contrary. We actually have DNA evidence, the relevance of which seems to evade RDI, whose only defence is to cast doubt on the laboratory or the method. The only reason the panty size is discussed is because it's all RDI has, and you guys outnumber us 10 to 1, so you make the running.

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?

I'm willing to accept that she was found in size 12 panties (even in the absence of evidence of it), but I maintain that she put them on herself, and they were not excessively large (certainly not as large as RDI posters have tried to make us believe). I have evidence that this is the case, because neither the coroner nor the police present at the autopsy noticed. You maintain that the coroner made mistakes, but with the other officers present, someone should have at lease commented on it. They didn't notice because, despite them being size 12, they were not for a 12 year old, but for a 9-10 year old, and that means they were a little large, but not excessively so. JBR was a normal sized child, not particularly skinny, not particularly fat. I think if PR was to buy expensive panties for her, then it would be natural she would up-size, not to a 7/8 but probably to a 8/9 which on the chart is size 10, one size smaller than those size 12's she wore. We do this because mothers always allow for their kids to grow.

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?

Let's just look a bit harder at the RDI scenario.

PR murders and penetrates her daughter with a broken stick. She then uses a cloth to wipe off the blood. Then she finds panties in a package she left there previously, opens these -- they were sealed with a plastic tie (with what? the pen knife? that was in the upstairs closet), so just say she took the pen knife with her when she took JBR downstairs (did she head bash her before or after this?) knowing as mothers do that she'd need it for something..... Then she stripped off her normal sized panties and placed the size 12's on her, replaced her longjohns. Then, what happened to the plastic tie off the plastic panty container? What happened to the normal sized panties? What happened to the cloth that wiped her? What happened to the bloodied stick? Did she put the remaining panties back in the FAO wrapping and re-stick it, so it just looked like she had opened the end a little? Why didn't the cops find the remaining 6 pairs in the wc?

So, do you see while it might FIT your RDI scenario, it also creates problems that you cannot solve. These problems are the LACK OF EVIDENCE that any of this occurred. The only way you are able to try to account for this is have a third person (BR or PP) take this evidence away. Where as, the obvious answer is that an IDI took them, brought all the things that were used and not in the house, and he/they also were the murderer(s).

Can you see now why I think that JBR just put a pair of slightly too large panties on herself that day?

 

[BOESP]

Murri, I don't have a problem with the lab or the method they used. I have a problem with the quality of DNA being used. Its like second-hand testimony.

 

[BBB167893]

Murri, I don't have a problem with the lab or the method they used. I have a problem with the quality of DNA being used. Its like second-hand testimony.

I would agree with that, and add in all of the other problems: likelihood of transferrence, distinct possibility that not everyone who could have been tested was--even Bill Wise mentioned that.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri, I don't have a problem with the lab or the method they used. I have a problem with the quality of DNA being used. Its like second-hand testimony.

The quality of the DNA was not a problem, it is tested in exactly the same way that other DNA is tested. The only difference is the collection method, scraping from an article in an area where they suspect DNA may have been deposited.

 

[BBB167893]

Let's just look a bit harder at the RDI scenario.

Now you're talking, Murri!

PR murders and penetrates her daughter with a broken stick. She then uses a cloth to wipe off the blood. Then she finds panties in a package she left there previously,

I follow.

opens these -- they were sealed with a plastic tie (with what? the pen knife? that was in the upstairs closet), so just say she took the pen knife with her when she took JBR downstairs (did she head bash her before or after this?) knowing as mothers do that she'd need it for something.....

Okay, let's hold up. I'm not aware that she would have needed the pen knife to open it. I'm certainly no expert on opening panty packs (not by a longshot, I'm not!) but a lot of plastic ties are not that hard to break. Even assuming that she did have the knife with her, who knows why.

And for the record, I believe that she headbashed JB before taking her there.

Then she stripped off her normal sized panties and placed the size 12's on her, replaced her longjohns.

Again, I follow.

Then, what happened to the plastic tie off the plastic panty container? What happened to the normal sized panties? What happened to the cloth that wiped her? What happened to the bloodied stick?

Well, assuming the police don't already know, any number of possibilities come to mind. Burned, shredded, flushed, dumped somewhere...

Did she put the remaining panties back in the FAO wrapping and re-stick it, so it just looked like she had opened the end a little?

I can see that happening.

Why didn't the cops find the remaining 6 pairs in the wc?

God, who knows?

So, do you see while it might FIT your RDI scenario, it also creates problems that you cannot solve. These problems are the LACK OF EVIDENCE that any of this occurred.

I agree with the first but not with the second. These problems MIGHT be the lack of evidence. But it's just as likely--if not moreso--that they're just the normal nagging things that occur with EVERY murder.

I'm not just saying that as a brush-off, either! I know you dislike my mentioning of other cases, Murri, so I'll be brief and remind everyone here that in every murder case, there will ALWAYS be things you can't account for. Any experience cop or prosecutor will tell you that there will always be things that don't fit; even when you get a conviction, there's something that will give you a sleepless night or two. You'll go home years later and say to yourself, "who DID that button belong to, anyway?" It's not like you see in the movies; there has never been a case where every single element "clicked" together like they do on TV. That is a fact. And while you, Murri, seem to be hung up (sorry, I couldn't think of any better term) over these things, after 14 straight years and a WHOLE LOT of study, I'm willing to accept this. I'm willing to face up to the very strong possibility that not every single mystery will be solved, and while i may not like it, I can live with it..

I hope that helps.

The only way you are able to try to account for this is have a third person (BR or PP) take this evidence away.

Maybe.

Where as, the obvious answer is that an IDI took them, brought all the things that were used and not in the house, and he/they also were the murderer(s).

That idea has quite a few problems of its own! And speaking for myself, it's going to take more than explanations like "crazy" to convince me.

Can you see now why I think that JBR just put a pair of slightly too large panties on herself that day?

Yes, I can, and I'm glad you decided to talk about it because it gives me something to work with.

 

[BOESP]

The quality of the DNA was not a problem, it is tested in exactly the same way that other DNA is tested. The only difference is the collection method, scraping from an article in an area where they suspect DNA may have been deposited.

I respectfully disagree. This board has many examples of why touch DNA is of a lesser forensic quality than blood, semen, or saliva in proving primary contact by an offender. The logic of proving the same with touch DNA compares to using touch DNA for body identication rather than say DNA from dentine or a hair follicle.

 

[MurriFlower]

Now you're talking, Murri!

I follow.

Okay, let's hold up. I'm not aware that she would have needed the pen knife to open it. I'm certainly no expert on opening panty packs (not by a longshot, I'm not!) but a lot of plastic ties are not that hard to break. Even assuming that she did have the knife with her, who knows why.

And for the record, I believe that she headbashed JB before taking her there.

Again, I follow.

Well, assuming the police don't already know, any number of possibilities come to mind. Burned, shredded, flushed, dumped somewhere...



I can see that happening.



God, who knows?



I agree with the first but not with the second. These problems MIGHT be the lack of evidence. But it's just as likely--if not moreso--that they're just the normal nagging things that occur with EVERY murder.

I'm not just saying that as a brush-off, either! I know you dislike my mentioning of other cases, Murri, so I'll be brief and remind everyone here that in every murder case, there will ALWAYS be things you can't account for. Any experience cop or prosecutor will tell you that there will always be things that don't fit; even when you get a conviction, there's something that will give you a sleepless night or two. You'll go home years later and say to yourself, "who DID that button belong to, anyway?" It's not like you see in the movies; there has never been a case where every single element "clicked" together like they do on TV. That is a fact. And while you, Murri, seem to be hung up (sorry, I couldn't think of any better term) over these things, after 14 straight years and a WHOLE LOT of study, I'm willing to accept this. I'm willing to face up to the very strong possibility that not every single mystery will be solved, and while i may not like it, I can live with it..

I hope that helps.



Maybe.



That idea has quite a few problems of its own! And speaking for myself, it's going to take more than explanations like "crazy" to convince me.



Yes, I can, and I'm glad you decided to talk about it because it gives me something to work with.

This, to me, is a surprising (if not amazing) number of things that you semi-agree with.

My IDI stance then relies not only on EVIDENCE that can be PROVEN (here I am referring to DNA found in three places on two pieces of clothing that were critical to the crime) but the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE of items used in the commission of the crime were not found and therefore indicates an intruder brought/took these things with them. As well as this, those who support RDI, (here I'm referring to the collective RDI theories, rather than addressing them individually) fail to account for things not sourced to the house/missing from the crime scene in any locigal way. So in order to bolster their case, RDI introduces these 'peripheral' discussions (panties, dolls, etc) for which there are numerous theories, but which also of themselves create difficulties that RDI cannot address. In order to avoid having to do so, the various theories of individuals are brought into play. You avoid having to account for your lack of evidence by dividing and distancing yourselves from these unproven RDI theories. Then we (IDI) are accused of lumping them all together, but there is never any hesitation for some RDI to congratulate, applaud and join in their ridicule of any IDI posts, so we can't be blamed for seeing IDI as 'you guys', because that's exactly how you operate. Unite when it suits, divide when that you want to squirm out of an answer. And what does this achieve? It wastes time and energy better spent on investigating hard evidence. It causes IDIs to leave in frustration. Is this the actions of those who genuinely want to solve this crime? I think it is just the actions of people who want to rid themelves of anyone who does not agree with them or at the very least, to cripple their attempts to look elsewhere for their murderer. It is not helpful.

 

[BBB167893]

This, to me, is a surprising (if not amazing) number of things that you semi-agree with.

Now, be careful here, Murri. I don't want any words put in anyone's mouth. You'll have to explain that to me.

My IDI stance then relies not only on EVIDENCE that can be PROVEN (here I am referring to DNA found in three places on two pieces of clothing that were critical to the crime) but the ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE of items used in the commission of the crime were not found and therefore indicates an intruder brought/took these things with them

.

I understand that, Murri. I used to be an IDI. I know all about it.

As well as this, those who support RDI, (here I'm referring to the collective RDI theories, rather than addressing them individually) fail to account for things not sourced to the house/missing from the crime scene in any logical way. So in order to bolster their case, RDI introduces these 'peripheral' discussions (panties, dolls, etc) for which there are numerous theories, but which also of themselves create difficulties that RDI cannot address. In order to avoid having to do so, the various theories of individuals are brought into play. You avoid having to account for your lack of evidence by dividing and distancing yourselves from these unproven RDI theories. Then we (IDI) are accused of lumping them all together, but there is never any hesitation for some RDI to congratulate, applaud and join in their ridicule of any IDI posts, so we can't be blamed for seeing IDI as 'you guys', because that's exactly how you operate. Unite when it suits, divide when that you want to squirm out of an answer. And what does this achieve? It wastes time and energy better spent on investigating hard evidence. It causes IDIs to leave in frustration. Is this the actions of those who genuinely want to solve this crime? I think it is just the actions of people who want to rid themelves of anyone who does not agree with them or at the very least, to cripple their attempts to look elsewhere for their murderer. It is not helpful.

There's no real reason for me to respond to this.

 

[UKGuy]

Now, be careful here, Murri. I don't want any words put in anyone's mouth. You'll have to explain that to me.

.

I understand that, Murri. I used to be an IDI. I know all about it.



There's no real reason for me to respond to this.

SuperDave,

As per normal conflation of DNA with touch-dna in an attempt to lend a semblance of absolute accuracy to forensic evidence that is flawed.


.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

SuperDave,

As per normal conflation of DNA with touch-dna in an attempt to lend a semblance of absolute accuracy to forensic evidence that is flawed.


.

Perhaps the DNA blew in thru the window? Landed on her longjohns and then fell on the blood stain?

I appreciate the importance of keeping an open mind, but not so open that...well you probably know the rest.

 

[Agatha_C]

You know, I try to figure how it s, that an intruder can carry things in and out, but not the Rs or any of their friends as if they would spontaneously combust if they had done so. No one was searched or frisked when they left the house that day. They (the Rs and company) just walked out like they were going to dinner (dont put words in my mouth, I know it wasnt that easy for them emotionally...) and not leaving a crime scene. when I was IDI, that bothered me. Just imagining all that could have fit in purses, pockets, backpack, coat pockets and under clothing...

Hmmmm, so than how did the intruder leave? A little girls pink pj pants and panties in his hands.. Oh sure officer, I can show you my ID could you hold these panties and rope for me.... It can be seen both ways, no matter how you look at it.....

 

[Ames]

I have never seen this info. PR , what a Big fat liar. I think it impossible for her not to remember if she bought JB a pair. and the ultimate lie is line 25. She knows she messed up bad by unwrapping the bloomies and putting them on her.
She is almost hilarious if it would not be so sad. She doesnt remember giving JB her last bath or cant account for her daughters undies or what is in her undie drawer? she cant remember what she put her daughter in when she got her ready for bed. Red turtleneck stories, soiled unders left to rot on floor while they vacation. This PR is truly a nut job. She did not deserve to be a mother.
I need to read Hodges book. I viewed the pageant photos in the other link and when you see them all together side by side and the progression of it, gives me a chill.

I think all the pieces are there to solve this crime. My compliments to newer members OTG and Agatha for really bringing light to how ridiculous the lies are. And these are not small lies. Your daughter has been murdered, beaten, strangled, touched in private places by an unknown assailant that stalked all of you.You and your remaining family obviously are still in immediate danger and this is all you got???? crazy. :furious:

Happy New Year Everyone!
All of us can make a difference.

Right....no size 8-10 panties were found. (She only said that because she was trying to make the size 12-14 that JB was found wearing, seem not so unusual. (Like investigators..or the interviewer is going to think ...well, you know...Patsy said that JB normally wore size 8-10, soooo...it's not that unusual that JB was found wearing a size 12-14). Yes, it was a big ole fat lie.

 

[Ames]

Ok, well, if you don't believe me, then believe the chart

notice how sizes are grouped together? So notice how S, M & L covers two sizes? Does this indicate that there would be much precision in the size of some garments? So now notice the age in years written on the bottom line. Size 12 is for girls 9-10 years (not 12 years as you have assumed). So now we are coming down from HUMUNGOUS to A BIT BIG. Really, you people must think I'm from Mars the way you try to BS me about stuff.

There's a big bugaboo here alright, but not in the R's story.

Ummm...not sure, but I don't believe that this is a pantie chart. Panties are not made in a 6X...for one thing...and the size that JB was found wearing was 12-14. This chart is sized...10-12, 14-16 (14-16 being extra large) ....JB would have worn a size 6-8. Aren't you from a different country...or am I thinking of another IDI??? My daughter was the exact size of JB ...when she was 6 (if fact, she even looks like her, and is told that constantly)...she wore a 6-8 when she was 6 years old. This...IMO... is a clothing chart...not a panty size chart....there IS a difference. I know that you are not the one that initially posted it though. My daughter....is 9 now...and can still wear the 6-8 panties....but wears a size 10 in clothes. You say that a size 12 is for girls 9-10 years old....there is NO WAY that my daughter would be able to wear a size 12. They would be humungous....and if she were to have worn a size 12-14 at the age of 6....well, that would have just been ridiculous. Regardless if this is a panty chart or not....there is a humongeous difference between a size 6 and a size 12-14.

 

[Agatha_C]

Looking at those panties beside of one another...it's the leg holes that are so huge...

I know right!!!! I mean when PR took her pants off, she would have clearly seen the panties and everything else...

I dont know about other mothers, but I would have laughed and remembered that..... Forever!