No intruder?

  • #1,041
I had my 7y/o try on my 11 y/o panties (recieved at christmas) this morning (after the, its not gross, she's your sister conversation...lol). It was the funniest thing to see, all three of us laughed until we cried and then we laughed some more.

So let me share our findings, though they did not slide down her hips as soon as she put them on, they did however slide down as she walked. We wont even get into the flapping swinging crotch...LOLOLOLOLOLOL... Sorry you had to be there...... My baby then tried to slide her jeans on and guess what happened? the panties slid up with the pants forcing material to bunch around the waist band and all she could do was pull at the material that was uncomfortable in her crotch area... She hated it and wanted to take them off and I didt blame her... I know what I know, I saw it with my own eyes and nothing anyone says to be contrary is going to sway that.

This should convince you of the absurdity of the whole idea. Neither JBR nor PR has a motive to put on this oversize underwear AND neither Dr. Meyer or Linda Ardnt reported it!

And why does RDI keep insisting that everything in an interrogation is gods word true?

"Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: how far is too far"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1290529
 
  • #1,042
I really don't know why we need to be justifying the existence of the panties. Patsy admitted buying them for her niece, who we know for a fact was older (and larger) than JB. So what is the IDI problem? The coroner NOTED white cotton panties with pink rosebud print and elastic waistband that says "Wednesday". Though he did not note the size, LE had no reason to lie about that and even if they HAD been JB's size, these panties come in a 7-pair set, so where were the rest of the set(s), regardless of the size?
The rest of the (alleged) set was not found by LE when they searched JB's panty drawer, so we know right there Patsy was lying when she said she put Jenny's set in there. LE didn't find them because they were still in the package in the basement. I don't believe LE took those "partially unwrapped" boxes into evidence, did they? (unbelievable). Maybe they were among the items PP "retrieved" from the home for her sister.

And I can't believe Patsy didn't remember whether she bought JB her own set. Frankly, I can't imagine Patsy (or any mom of a little girl) buying her OWN daughter a set when buying a set for someone else.
 
  • #1,043
I really don't know why we need to be justifying the existence of the panties. Patsy admitted buying them for her niece, who we know for a fact was older (and larger) than JB. So what is the IDI problem? The coroner NOTED white cotton panties with pink rosebud print and elastic waistband that says "Wednesday". Though he did not note the size, LE had no reason to lie about that and even if they HAD been JB's size, these panties come in a 7-pair set, so where were the rest of the set(s), regardless of the size?
The rest of the (alleged) set was not found by LE when they searched JB's panty drawer, so we know right there Patsy was lying when she said she put Jenny's set in there. LE didn't find them because they were still in the package in the basement. I don't believe LE took those "partially unwrapped" boxes into evidence, did they? (unbelievable). Maybe they were among the items PP "retrieved" from the home for her sister.

And I can't believe Patsy didn't remember whether she bought JB her own set. Frankly, I can't imagine Patsy (or any mom of a little girl) buying her OWN daughter a set when buying a set for someone else.

my big bold

"The coroner NOTED white cotton panties with pink rosebud print and elastic waistband that says "Wednesday". Though he did not note the size"


Why did the coroner not remark on the size? Because the size was not remarkable. There is no way Dr. Meyer would include Wednesday and KOREA details and exclude peculiar size 12-14 detail.
 
  • #1,044
Factor in the fact that anybody known to have handled the evidence was tested,

I have my doubts. Even Bill Wise said he didn't think that was likely.

factor in the notion that anybody not tested who knew themselves they handled JBR's clothing either before or after her murder and didn't GET themselves tested...I mean how suspicious would THAT be?

Now there's an interesting point.
 
  • #1,045
I think this will fall on deaf ears HOTYH,

No, just educated ones. But the effect is much the same.

RDI just believe everything asked in interviews could be proven by a report that is just being kept secret for some reason.

Key word there: could. Yes, it certainly could. And the reason for keeping it secret is actually pretty obvious: because it's SOP to keep evidence secret in a case like this until trial. There's nothing mysterious or underhanded about it.

I've said it before: if the police and DA hadn't given away so much evidence, this case might be solved right now.

My understanding of the permitted interview technique used is that they can say what they like, but they cannot produce a false report to back it up. So if they actually showed the Rs or their lawyer the report, it would have to be exactly what they said it was and was also the actual report they would produce in court. This is why there was nothing shown. Either the report did not exist or what it said was not the conclusion they told the R's was contained in the report.

OR, they were going by the book and not letting the suspects and their lawyers get their hands on it before trial.

Murri, I'm willing to work with you on this because you probably don't know all that much about the ins-and-outs of the American legal process, and given that America is not particularly liked in some parts of the world right now, I can only imagine what kinds of things you've heard about American police. But it's SOP for suspects and their lawyers to not be shown police file material.
 
  • #1,046
This is true ONLY if you can prove the police went too far. Since you or I or anyone not in the BPD have no way of knowing all the evidence that is in custody, you can not prove law enforcement went too far.

That's just it, Sunnie. They don't have to prove it. It's enough that they believe it.

Trust me, guys, this is old hat for me!

The R's also has representation there at all times. They were only questioned within the guidelines that were preset by their lawyers. Pretty lucky for the R's I would say! Also very convenient, since it was known ahead of time what would be asked.

Lest we forget that.
 
  • #1,047
my big bold

Why did the coroner not remark on the size? Because the size was not remarkable. There is no way Dr. Meyer would include Wednesday and KOREA details and exclude peculiar size 12-14 detail.

Not at all. Just like he didn't note "14K" on the ring, bracelet or cross. He simply noted them as "yellow metal".
The coroner was a man. I have no idea if he ever had little girls or granddaughters. My own husband might not have noticed if our daughter was wearing panties much too large for her unless she was walking around and they fell down. Sadly, JB was not walking around in them (or had ever stood up in them).
She wore pants to the White's anyway. Even if she had worn those panties, they wouldn't have fallen down or been noticeable to someone looking at her.
 
  • #1,048
I still have not figured out how anyone can not believe that these panties existed and were on JonBenet. How in the world did the BPD come up with this if they were not on her? If they were as inept as we've come to believe, who was the mastermind that thought of this? Since the rest of the package were not found in the home, are we supposed to believe that some really lucky detective just said "hey, I know what, let's pretend she had on really big panties and see if it will stick?" That's a pretty ludicrous notion.

No beck I think it probably went down a bit like it has here. Somone noticed size 12 on her panties in the evidence and then built up a whole story about how they came to be on her. Lets just say she put them on herself and move on shall we?
 
  • #1,049
In the absence of any evidence, other than anecdotal, that size 12 Bloomingdales panties (made to fit a 10 year old) would have been so large they would have fallen off JBR, and as these drew no comment from either the coroner or police witnesses, the myth about the redressing in oversized panties by PR should therefore be able to be put to bed permanently. We can assume that if she was in fact wearing size 12 panties, then JBR put them on herself.

I'm happy to cease arguing about it provided it isn't continually being brought up by RDI as an accepted fact and as part of their 'totallity of evidence' against the R's.

For me, the argument isn't so much that she was redressed in the oversize panties as that she was redressed, period.
 
  • #1,050
MurriFlower,

Are you still talking nonsense? Why are you wasting peoples time with your absence of evidence arguments.

How about you apply your absence of evidence to your invented DNA, you have not produced anything to prove its existence. So since its like the size-12's, so it must be fake, the DNA claim is bogus , made up just to get the Ramsey's of the hook.

Step up to the plate, and stop playing games.
.

Since all you have by way of contradiction is to accuse me of talking 'nonsense' and then you suggest that DNA evidence is 'invented' by me, then it is you who ae wasting time. Trying to make the Rs appear guilty is your game, not mine.
 
  • #1,051
For me, the argument isn't so much that she was redressed in the oversize panties as that she was redressed, period.

Pants pulled down and then up. This is redressed?
 
  • #1,052
And why does RDI keep insisting that everything in an interrogation is gods word true?

I think you misunderstand, HOTYH. I don't think any of us are trying to say that the interrogation statements are Gospel. For us, it's more a matter of making a choice as to who to believe. And for me--I can't speak for other people--that choice boils down to this:

1) The prime suspects, who we KNOW have lied, even when they WEREN'T talking to the cops

OR

2) Cops like Tom Haney, who is a professional and a man's man who knows how to do his job and prosecutors like Michael Kane and Bruce Levin who not only have the experience and the "man's man" ethical chops that Haney does, but are absolutely FORBIDDEN to lie by Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

It's not a difficult choice.
 
  • #1,053
Not at all. Just like he didn't note "14K" on the ring, bracelet or cross. He simply noted them as "yellow metal".
The coroner was a man. I have no idea if he ever had little girls or granddaughters. My own husband might not have noticed if our daughter was wearing panties much too large for her unless she was walking around and they fell down. Sadly, JB was not walking around in them (or had ever stood up in them).
She wore pants to the White's anyway. Even if she had worn those panties, they wouldn't have fallen down or been noticeable to someone looking at her.

Yes, my point exactly DD. They may have been size 12, but they weren't falling down or noticeable to anyone, even a female at the autopsy, as being excessively large, let along HUMONGOS as as been suggested. I think she probably did dress herself in them, perhaps because they were new and it was Christmas. The BPD later found they were size 12 and decided they must have been too large for her and invented a whole scenario that implicated the Rs, much as has happened here. Just another diversion.
 
  • #1,054
I think you misunderstand, HOTYH. I don't think any of us are trying to say that the interrogation statements are Gospel. For us, it's more a matter of making a choice as to who to believe. And for me--I can't speak for other people--that choice boils down to this:

1) The prime suspects, who we KNOW have lied, even when they WEREN'T talking to the cops

OR

2) Cops like Tom Haney, who is a professional and a man's man who knows how to do his job and prosecutors like Michael Kane and Bruce Levin who not only have the experience and the "man's man" ethical chops that Haney does, but are absolutely FORBIDDEN to lie by Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct : Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

It's not a difficult choice.

I think for us laymen on the outside, taking interview (interrogation) remarks as fact based on simply trusting the interrogators is extremely naive. These things need to be backed up by well documented secondary sources, like the DNA is.

Obviously you're free to believe who you want to believe. I suggest instead using well documented sourced facts because the rest could be junk.
 
  • #1,055
  • #1,056
That's right.

So is this pants and longjohns taken right off her and then put back on one at a time? Or is it more like pants and longjohns peeled down past her crotch to allow for the fingering and then pulled back up?
 
  • #1,057
I think for us laymen on the outside, taking interview (interrogation) remarks as fact based on simply trusting the interrogators is extremely naive.

Maybe so, in a general sense. But to me, it all comes down to who is more trustworthy. Don't avoid the issue, HOTYH. And for GOD'S SAKE, don't talk to me about who's being naive! That's not a path you want to travel with me!

These things need to be backed up by well documented secondary sources, like the DNA is.

If anything, that example shows the difference between competent, serious LE agents who keep their mouths shut vs. the ones you seem to prefer.
 
  • #1,058
So is this pants and longjohns taken right off her and then put back on one at a time? Or is it more like pants and longjohns peeled down past her crotch to allow for the fingering and then pulled back up?

Possibly the first, but much more likely the second, as I see it. So I bolded it.
 
  • #1,059
Maybe so, in a general sense. But to me, it all comes down to who is more trustworthy. Don't avoid the issue, HOTYH. And for GOD'S SAKE, don't talk to me about who's being naive! That's not a path you want to travel with me!



If anything, that example shows the difference between competent, serious LE agents who keep their mouths shut vs. the ones you seem to prefer.

Truth isn't a relative "who do you trust more?" concept. Its absolute "is it truth or not?"

This is an unsolved child murder for 14 years. This despite DNA, handwriting, linguistics, the body, the weapons, and assistance from CASKU, CBI, FBI, US Secret Service, and all the great FBI profilers.

Where did you say the competent, serious LE agents were again?
 
  • #1,060

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,720
Total visitors
2,840

Forum statistics

Threads
632,572
Messages
18,628,605
Members
243,198
Latest member
ghghhh13
Back
Top