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.
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.
Factor in the fact that anybody known to have handled the evidence was tested,
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?
I think this will fall on deaf ears HOTYH,
RDI just believe everything asked in interviews could be proven by a report that is just being kept secret for some reason.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
For me, the argument isn't so much that she was redressed in the oversize panties as that she was redressed, period.
And why does RDI keep insisting that everything in an interrogation is gods word true?
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.
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.
Pants pulled down and then up. This is redressed?
That's right.
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.
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?
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.
Possibly the first, but much more likely the second, as I see it. So I bolded it.
