The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

Chrishope said:

I think it's quite possible there were multiple stagings, and that PR maybe didn't know about a re-re-staging with the 12s.

Click to expand...

Chrishope,
That would be my interpretation otherwise why would she bother with her fabrication about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer?

When interviewed about the pineapple snack etc she disowned some of the items on the table. Similarly with the flashlight not ours the R's said.

But for the size-12's which she had been tipped off about prior to the actual interview Patsy invents an explanation which is completely contradicted because there were no size-12's anywhere in the house. If she had been the size-12 redresser she would have known these facts. And in knowing these facts she would have been better placed to say: not our underwear too large for JonBenet, the intruder must have brought them with him

So if Patsy knew all the facts why did she not disown the size-12's?


.

UKGuy said:

Chrishope,
So if Patsy knew all the facts why did she not disown the size-12's?

Click to expand...

interesting question..... if we were to assume JR (or someone else) did the redressing and she didn't know about it, and perhaps didn't know about the molestation or wet/stained underwear, or any reason for the underwear to be removed, or JBR's 'area' to be cleaned and changed, then maybe she is not thinking of a reason for an intruder to need to bring underwear with him, and has to think of a reason for her to be in them in the first place...

also, even if it would seem that saying an intruder brought the underwear with him, to put distance of any knowledge of them, that doesn't seem like a likely thing to say that an intruder would do...it sounds absurd, and why would an intruder need to do that. Maybe she thought saying that woudn't make any sense either,

...and anyway if she was supposedly only being kidnapped, why would her underwear have been changed by an intruder? After all, when asked if she knew if JonBenet had been molested, she said no she had no knowledge of it, and said that she had no knowledge of any prior molestation either. Whether that was true or not, she did not know, or at least intend, for molestation to be part of the intruder evidence.

But this underwear is a huge deal when considering the fact that they came forward with the rest of the package years later. Why do it at all at that point? They're trying to say it was perfectly normal for the underwear to be in the house, and have it coincide with their original story, that's why. But it also wipes away any doubt that the underwear did not originate in the house. Yet it was not in her drawer as stated. If it really was wrapped in a package, someone had to specifically look for underwear to replace on JBR, and knew to find it in a wrapped gift, and only a Ramsey would know that.

It really is another huge smoking gun.

UKGuy said:

Chrishope,
That would be my interpretation otherwise why would she bother with her fabrication about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer?

When interviewed about the pineapple snack etc she disowned some of the items on the table. Similarly with the flashlight not ours the R's said.

But for the size-12's which she had been tipped off about prior to the actual interview Patsy invents an explanation which is completely contradicted because there were no size-12's anywhere in the house. If she had been the size-12 redresser she would have known these facts. And in knowing these facts she would have been better placed to say: not our underwear too large for JonBenet, the intruder must have brought them with him

So if Patsy knew all the facts why did she not disown the size-12's?
.

Click to expand...

We know there were at least one pair of 12s in the house, and it seems likely they came from a package which contained the other days of the week. (Most of us here are RDI, so lets not get bogged down in asking why the "intruder" would bring one pair of WED size 12s)

Whether the package had been wrapped or not, we don't know. If we theorize that JR put the 12s on JBR, he either knew which package to unwrap, or they were not yet wrapped, and he saw them.

As UKGuy points out, JBs dresser drawer may well have contained other pairs of WED size 6s. We don't know. Then again, maybe the drawer was searched and no WED pair could be found?

The fact that she was redressed in the WED 12s would seem to indicate someone wanted her wearing panties labeld WED. Otherwise why not pull any pair out of the drawer, or out of the package?

Doesn't it seem as though she had been redressed to be consistent with the story that would be told to police? She was carried upstairs, put to bed, and the long johns were put on her. Essentially she is wearing what she wore at the Christmas dinner/party. Except that the LJs were put on her when she was put to bed. And I guess her bottoms (what had she worn to the party, a skirt? pants?) were removed.

Of course, Burke contradicts the story of JB being carried into the house asleep. Even if he's mistaken, we still don't know that LJs actually were put on her at bedtime. Could be they were put on her after the murder. But the story was going to be they were put on her at bedtime. She had to be found wearing the same thing the Rs said she had on when put to bed.

So, if the story has been agreed upon, and has to be kept straight, then she has to be wearing WED panties, long johns, and her white Gap top.

So maybe the WED tag was more important than size? Maybe the redresser didn't really know the size was way way too big? But he knew they had to say WED ?

Maybe PR thought JB was dressed in her original 6s, and the story about the package being in JBs drawer is an attempt to explain how JB could end up in 12s? If she didn't know what happened to the original size 6s, she can't disown the 12s because then the only explanation is the unlikely one that the "intruder" brought them. An intruder who happens to know JB wears day of the week panties, and happens to know that PR is a stickler for wearing them on the correct day.

Where are JBs size 6 WED panties?

As an aside, does anyone have experience with underwear labeled for each day of the week? Would it be very likely, after the first couple weeks, that anyone would really care which "day" was being worn on any particular day? If you'll excuse the bad joke, it seems like a PITA.

Chrishope said:

We know there were at least one pair of 12s in the house, and it seems likely they came from a package which contained the other days of the week. (Most of us here are RDI, so lets not get bogged down in asking why the "intruder" would bring one pair of WED size 12s)

Whether the package had been wrapped or not, we don't know. If we theorize that JR put the 12s on JBR, he either knew which package to unwrap, or they were not yet wrapped, and he saw them.

As UKGuy points out, JBs dresser drawer may well have contained other pairs of WED size 6s. We don't know. Then again, maybe the drawer was searched and no WED pair could be found?

The fact that she was redressed in the WED 12s would seem to indicate someone wanted her wearing panties labeld WED. Otherwise why not pull any pair out of the drawer, or out of the package?

Doesn't it seem as though she had been redressed to be consistent with the story that would be told to police? She was carried upstairs, put to bed, and the long johns were put on her. Essentially she is wearing what she wore at the Christmas dinner/party. Except that the LJs were put on her when she was put to bed. And I guess her bottoms (what had she worn to the party, a skirt? pants?) were removed.

Of course, Burke contradicts the story of JB being carried into the house asleep. Even if he's mistaken, we still don't know that LJs actually were put on her at bedtime. Could be they were put on her after the murder. But the story was going to be they were put on her at bedtime. She had to be found wearing the same thing the Rs said she had on when put to bed.

So, if the story has been agreed upon, and has to be kept straight, then she has to be wearing WED panties, long johns, and her white Gap top.

So maybe the WED tag was more important than size? Maybe the redresser didn't really know the size was way way too big? But he knew they had to say WED ?

Maybe PR thought JB was dressed in her original 6s, and the story about the package being in JBs drawer is an attempt to explain how JB could end up in 12s? If she didn't know what happened to the original size 6s, she can't disown the 12s because then the only explanation is the unlikely one that the "intruder" brought them. An intruder who happens to know JB wears day of the week panties, and happens to know that PR is a stickler for wearing them on the correct day.

Where are JBs size 6 WED panties?

As an aside, does anyone have experience with underwear labeled for each day of the week? Would it be very likely, after the first couple weeks, that anyone would really care which "day" was being worn on any particular day? If you'll excuse the bad joke, it seems like a PITA.

Click to expand...

Chrishope,

The fact that she was redressed in the WED 12s would seem to indicate someone wanted her wearing panties labeld WED. Otherwise why not pull any pair out of the drawer, or out of the package?

Click to expand...

Note quite. Because if there is a size-6 Wednesday pair in her underwear drawer then we need to explain why they were rejected in favor of the size-12's. Then we could all be wrong and they have been selected at random e.g. any size, any day of the week, as long as its underwear?

So, if the story has been agreed upon, and has to be kept straight, then she has to be wearing WED panties, long johns, and her white Gap top.

Click to expand...

I reckon it was John who redressed JonBenet. Probably removing a prior redressing by Patsy?

John and Patsy agree on what JonBenet was wearing when she was placed into bed. Assuming Patsy was genuinely ignorant regarding the size-12's, then it appears that John deliberately did not tell her. Although when questioned about the underwear that JonBenet was wearing when her velvet pants were removed Patsy never noticed, just that if there had been none she would have noticed that? So in both interviews Patsy is consistent in demonstrating a degree of ignorance, what we do not know is if this is intentional?

Maybe PR thought JB was dressed in her original 6s, and the story about the package being in JBs drawer is an attempt to explain how JB could end up in 12s? If she didn't know what happened to the original size 6s, she can't disown the 12s because then the only explanation is the unlikely one that the "intruder" brought them. An intruder who happens to know JB wears day of the week panties, and happens to know that PR is a stickler for wearing them on the correct day.

Click to expand...

In the original interview the first thing established is Patsy recounting her trip to New York and Bloomingdales to purchase the size-12's as a gift for her niece Jenny. Patsy is explicitly told we have to make sure that the intruder did not bring them into the house!

Patsy was fabricating stuff about JonBenet and the size-12's which turned out to be false and provably so. For whatever reason, she must have thought the size-12's were still somewhere in the house? Patsy suggested JonBenet was wearing the size-12's because she placed them into her underwear drawer. So when none are discovered in the house, it follows, as per IDI, that the intruder removed them. This is one reductio too far so someone realized we could return them and suggest LEA had missed them? And for RDI its indirect evidence that crime-scene evidence was indeed safely transported out of the house.

As an aside, does anyone have experience with underwear labeled for each day of the week? Would it be very likely, after the first couple weeks, that anyone would really care which "day" was being worn on any particular day? If you'll excuse the bad joke, it seems like a PITA.

Click to expand...

Probably not, I doubt JonBenet would be that concerned, maybe Patsy if she had dressed JonBenet prior to leaving for the White's.

I suspect that the Wednesday day of the week feature might simply be a red herring. That is we can attribute all manner of importance to it e.g. someone may have witnessed JonBenet wearing size-6 Wednesday pair, or the redresser wanted to keep the staging consistent.

When actually if a witness might notice Wednesday on the waistband, would they also not notice that they were hanging about her knees too?

It is curious that Patsy is ignorant about what underwear JonBenet wore to the Whites, what underwear JonBenet was wearing when she allegedly placed the longjohns on her. Because given what we know transpired she should have felt confident enough to state size-12's.

Which indirectly makes the alternative explanation even less likely e.g. Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, but John removed the remainder, but omitted to tell Patsy?

Where are JBs size 6 WED panties?

Click to expand...

Probably the same place that the remaining size-12's ended up in. The more interesting question is why were they removed at all?


.

Whaleshark said:

interesting question..... if we were to assume JR (or someone else) did the redressing and she didn't know about it, and perhaps didn't know about the molestation or wet/stained underwear, or any reason for the underwear to be removed, or JBR's 'area' to be cleaned and changed, then maybe she is not thinking of a reason for an intruder to need to bring underwear with him, and has to think of a reason for her to be in them in the first place...

also, even if it would seem that saying an intruder brought the underwear with him, to put distance of any knowledge of them, that doesn't seem like a likely thing to say that an intruder would do...it sounds absurd, and why would an intruder need to do that. Maybe she thought saying that woudn't make any sense either,

...and anyway if she was supposedly only being kidnapped, why would her underwear have been changed by an intruder? After all, when asked if she knew if JonBenet had been molested, she said no she had no knowledge of it, and said that she had no knowledge of any prior molestation either. Whether that was true or not, she did not know, or at least intend, for molestation to be part of the intruder evidence.

But this underwear is a huge deal when considering the fact that they came forward with the rest of the package years later. Why do it at all at that point? They're trying to say it was perfectly normal for the underwear to be in the house, and have it coincide with their original story, that's why. But it also wipes away any doubt that the underwear did not originate in the house. Yet it was not in her drawer as stated. If it really was wrapped in a package, someone had to specifically look for underwear to replace on JBR, and knew to find it in a wrapped gift, and only a Ramsey would know that.

It really is another huge smoking gun.

Click to expand...

Whaleshark,

It really is another huge smoking gun.

Click to expand...

It really is, not even IDI can explain this one away.

But this underwear is a huge deal when considering the fact that they came forward with the rest of the package years later. Why do it at all at that point?

Click to expand...

Because no size-12 underwear was found anywhere in the house by BPD. Yet Patsy's explanation depended on their existence. That is JonBenet wore the size-12's to the White's, because neither Patsy or any intruder dressed JonBenet in them and presumably no worn size-6 pair was found in her bedroom?

interesting question..... if we were to assume JR (or someone else) did the redressing and she didn't know about it, and perhaps didn't know about the molestation or wet/stained underwear, or any reason for the underwear to be removed, or JBR's 'area' to be cleaned and changed, then maybe she is not thinking of a reason for an intruder to need to bring underwear with him, and has to think of a reason for her to be in them in the first place...

Click to expand...

This just might be the correct explanation, since although the forensic evidence suggests that Patsy may have applied the ligature etc. This does not preclude the possibility that JonBenet was already cleaned up, and redressed, along comes Patsy adds and applies the ligature, finishing off with the duct-tape etc, whilst John is busy removing the remaining size-12's and worn size-6's?



.

JB couldn't read, so selecting the correct day of the week would not be an issue for her- someone else would have to do it for her.
As far as whether someone would continue to choose the correct day of the week from the set after the novelty of owning such a set had worn off...I am sure at some point wearing the correct day panty would cease being necessary, but that depends on the person. I know some girls who couldn't care less and some who would ONLY wear the correct day.

Note quite. Because if there is a size-6 Wednesday pair in her underwear drawer then we need to explain why they were rejected in favor of the size-12's. Then we could all be wrong and they have been selected at random e.g. any size, any day of the week, as long as its underwear?

Click to expand...

I suspect that the Wednesday day of the week feature might simply be a red herring. That is we can attribute all manner of importance to it e.g. someone may have witnessed JonBenet wearing size-6 Wednesday pair, or the redresser wanted to keep the staging consistent.

Click to expand...

Possibly.

It's hard to think of a reason to specifically select the 12s. If selected randomly, they likely were not in a package in JBs dresser drawer - why bother opening a package if one doesn't care what panties are selected? One possibility - opening a package assures they are "clean" at least of any trace evidence pointing back to the redresser. But why not just pull out the top pair from the package? I assume Wed would be near the middle of the "stack" within the package, though I guess it's not absolutely necessary they were packaged in correct order by day. Were there different colors for different days? Could color have been the criteria?

If they were loose in the drawer, random selection would be possible. But this contradicts the story of buying them as a gift. If JR was the redresser, it might also explain not knowing they were wrong -despite appearances - since they came from her drawer.

In either case, this places the redressing in the bedroom, which seems unlikely.

In the original interview the first thing established is Patsy recounting her trip to New York and Bloomingdales to purchase the size-12's as a gift for her niece Jenny. Patsy is explicitly told we have to make sure that the intruder did not bring them into the house!

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of this. Why would it be important that the intruder didn't bring them? -I mean other than the sheer unbelievability of it? Certainly it's no sillier than the intruder redressing the victim in the first place.

Patsy was fabricating stuff about JonBenet and the size-12's which turned out to be false and provably so. For whatever reason, she must have thought the size-12's were still somewhere in the house? Patsy suggested JonBenet was wearing the size-12's because she placed them into her underwear drawer. So when none are discovered in the house, it follows, as per IDI, that the intruder removed them. This is one reductio too far so someone realized we could return them and suggest LEA had missed them? And for RDI its indirect evidence that crime-scene evidence was indeed safely transported out of the house.

Click to expand...

She knew the 12s were in the house the night of the murder. She "explains" why the 12s are on JB - they were in her drawer. As you pointed out, we do not know if the ignorance is real or feigned.

Chrishope said:

Possibly.

It's hard to think of a reason to specifically select the 12s. If selected randomly, they likely were not in a package in JBs dresser drawer - why bother opening a package if one doesn't care what panties are selected? One possibility - opening a package assures they are "clean" at least of any trace evidence pointing back to the redresser. But why not just pull out the top pair from the package? I assume Wed would be near the middle of the "stack" within the package, though I guess it's not absolutely necessary they were packaged in correct order by day. Were there different colors for different days? Could color have been the criteria?

If they were loose in the drawer, random selection would be possible. But this contradicts the story of buying them as a gift. If JR was the redresser, it might also explain not knowing they were wrong -despite appearances - since they came from her drawer.

In either case, this places the redressing in the bedroom, which seems unlikely.

I'm not sure of this. Why would it be important that the intruder didn't bring them? -I mean other than the sheer unbelievability of it? Certainly it's no sillier than the intruder redressing the victim in the first place.


She knew the 12s were in the house the night of the murder. She "explains" why the 12s are on JB - they were in her drawer. As you pointed out, we do not know if the ignorance is real or feigned.

Click to expand...

Well, I had given at least two reasons why the size 12s were selected. Knowing there were panties right there in the basement meant no one had to go up to JB's room to get another pair. Selecting the WEDNESDAY pair, though, may have been deliberate. I have seen these kind of panties new in the package and, yes, they are placed in the pack in order (Sunday, Monday, etc.) Wednesday pair is in the CENTER of the package and to me, requires a deliberate selection, otherwise you'd just pull out the first pair in the package.
The only reason I can see why Patsy admitted the panties were the ones she bought for her niece is that she may have been worried police would find proof she had bought them (credit card receipts, store receipts). Maybe she didn't think fast enough- if police were willing to believe an intruder bought them, why not let them? It is the same as JR admitting he was the one who broke the basement window. The housekeeper knew about it because she had been asked to clean it up, so he had to admit it. Didn't stop LS from ignoring that FACTm though. He still made it seem like an intruder had broken it.

DeeDee249 said:

Well, I had given at least two reasons why the size 12s were selected. Knowing there were panties right there in the basement meant no one had to go up to JB's room to get another pair. Selecting the WEDNESDAY pair, though, may have been deliberate. I have seen these kind of panties new in the package and, yes, they are placed in the pack in order (Sunday, Monday, etc.) Wednesday pair is in the CENTER of the package and to me, requires a deliberate selection, otherwise you'd just pull out the first pair in the package.
The only reason I can see why Patsy admitted the panties were the ones she bought for her niece is that she may have been worried police would find proof she had bought them (credit card receipts, store receipts). Maybe she didn't think fast enough- if police were willing to believe an intruder bought them, why not let them? It is the same as JR admitting he was the one who broke the basement window. The housekeeper knew about it because she had been asked to clean it up, so he had to admit it. Didn't stop LS from ignoring that FACTm though. He still made it seem like an intruder had broken it.

Click to expand...

Yes, they could have been selected because they were convenient. And you're right, going back upstairs for panties may have raised questions the rederesser didn't want asked.

When I said there was no sensible reason to select the 12s I meant just that there was no reason to prefer 12s as a size - not that there couldn't be other reasons for selecting those panties, which happened to be 12s.

It makes sense that PR told about buying them as a gift because she may have bought them with a credit card.

TOM HANEY: "Did JonBenet have panties with the names of each day of the week on it?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "YES."
TOM HANEY: " OKAY. And did she wear those according to the day of the week or was it just kind of ---"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Just whatever."
TOM HANEY: "Did she know, pay much attention to what day of the week it was?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "No."
TOM HANEY: "So what ever would come out of the drawer?"
PATSY RAMSEY: "Yes."
___

Testimony of why the size 12s might be in JBRs drawer:

1 A. I am sure that I put the package
2 of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened
3 them and put them on.
4 Q. Do you know if -- you bought
5 these sometime in mid to early December, is
6 that correct, as far as -- no, I am sorry,
7 you bought them in November?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. Do you recall, was she wearing
10 these? And I don't mean this specific day
11 of the week, but was she wearing, were you
12 aware of the fact that she, you know, was in
13 this package of underpants and had been
14 wearing them since the trip to New York in
15 November?
16 A. I don't remember.
17 Q. Ms. Hoffman Pugh generally did the
18 laundry for the family, that is part of her
19 duties; is that correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Exclusively, or did you wash
22 clothes on occasion?
23 A. I washed a lot of clothes.
24 Q. Do you have any recollection of
25 ever washing any of the Bloomi panties?

85
1 A. Not specifically.
2 Q. Was it something that, the fact
3 that she is wearing these underpants designed
4 for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and
5 I will give you a minute to think about it
6 because I know it is tough to try to pin
7 down a couple of months of casual
8 conversation -- do you recall ever having any
9 conversations with her concerning the fact
10 that she is wearing underwear that is just
11 too large for her?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it
14 was, if it had caught your attention or came
15 to your attention, do you think you might
16 have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't
17 fit, put something on that fits, that is
18 inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
19 had come to your attention --
20 A. Well, obviously we, you know, the
21 package had been opened, we made the
22 decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and
23 use them because, you know, we weren't going
24 to give them to Jenny after all, I guess,
25 so.

86
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.
9 MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see
10 if they fell down around her ankles or not?
11 THE WITNESS: No.
12 MS. HARMER: But you specifically
13 remember her putting on the bigger pair?
14 And I am not saying --
15 THE WITNESS: They were just in
16 her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I
17 don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all
18 of her clean panties in a drawer and she can
19 help herself to whatever is in there.
20 MS. HARMER: I guess I am not
21 clear on, you bought the panties to give to
22 Jenny.
23 THE WITNESS: Right.
24 MS. HARMER: And they ended up in
25 JonBenet's bathroom?

87
1 A. Right.
2 Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm
3 sorry. Do you recall making a decision then
4 not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet
5 express an interest in them; therefore, you
6 didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
7 A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I
8 think I bought them with the intention of
9 sending them in a package of Christmas things
10 to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that
11 together, so I just put them in her, her
12 panty drawer. So they were free game.
___

11 Q. Why is it that you remember
12 buying Bloomingdale's panties in November of
13 1996?
14 A. Because --
15 MR. WOOD: Because she remembers
16 it. I mean --
17 MR. KANE: Wait a second, Lin.
18 Would you please let her answer the question?
19 It is a simple question.
20 MR. WOOD: Why is it that you
21 remember something?
22 MR. KANE: Yes, why do you
23 remember --
24 MR. WOOD: Because she remembered.
25 Q. (By Mr. Kane) - that, that

92
1 detail?
2 A. Well, for starters, it has been
3 made such a big detail.
4 Q. Okay, well, that is my question.
5 A. I remember that I -- and I, you
6 know, we were kind of shopping around, and
7 it was close to Christmas season, so we
8 might pick up a little souvenir. I
9 bought -- I think I picked up a little
10 something for a baby-sitter, you know.
11 Q. Where was it that you became
12 aware that this was -- where was it that it
13 was made a big deal? What was the source
14 of your information that Bloomingdale's
15 panties somehow were significant that made
16 you then say, wait a second, did I ever buy
17 those?
18 MR. WOOD: Do you have a precise
19 recollection of that event occurring where
20 all of a sudden something happened and you
21 decided it was some big deal?
22 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I
23 mean, my first thought is something in the
24 tabloids, but, you know, they get everything
25 wrong, so --

93
1 Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you
2 aware that these were the size of panties
3 that she was wearing, and this has been
4 publicized, it is out in the open, that they
5 were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of
6 that?
7 A. I have become aware of that, yes.
8 Q. And how did you become aware of
9 that?
10 A. Something I read, I am sure.
11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
Q. "Okay. And every one of those was either a size 4 or a size 6. Okay? Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was 6 years old?"
A. "I would say more like 6 to 8. There were probably some in there that were too small."
Q. "Okay, but not size 12 to 14?"
A. "Not typically, no."
__

Doesn't seem there were any size 12/14s in the underwear drawer, despite the fact that PR tries to say that's where they probably were, but yet none would typically be kept in there.

And as we know, though Patsy was "sure she put them in JB's panty drawer", the remaining 6 pairs were sent to LE through her attorney LW 5 years later, still in the original package.

Who besides Patsy would know if JB was originally wearing size 6 Wednesday panties?

Maybe this is where the Wednesday issue lies. I would think JB would have soiled herself upon the blow to the head, the stun gun, or even the actual strangling. One of those would have brought about soiling, both urine and fecal matter. So, to try to keep things continuous a Wednesday pair would be selected in cover up mode. That could have created a slip up with JR and PR being questioned, so why not stick with what you already knew and held in your mind that JB was wearing.

Obviously getting rid of the soiled size 6s would be a priority.

21merc7 said:

Who besides Patsy would know if JB was originally wearing size 6 Wednesday panties?

Maybe this is where the Wednesday issue lies. I would think JB would have soiled herself upon the blow to the head, the stun gun, or even the actual strangling. One of those would have brought about soiling, both urine and fecal matter. So, to try to keep things continuous a Wednesday pair would be selected in cover up mode. That could have created a slip up with JR and PR being questioned, so why not stick with what you already knew and held in your mind that JB was wearing.

Obviously getting rid of the soiled size 6s would be a priority.

Click to expand...

I think that makes sense. They were concerned their stories should be consistent, and that they knew nothing of any events between putting JBR to bed and waking up to find the RN.

No one but PR would have known with certainty what size JBR was wearing, but proper sized WED panties would have been assumed by anyone else.

Because the WED pair had to be pulled out of the middle of the package, it seems they were chosen specifically for their WED marking.

Since the size 6s she was wearing that night are gone, we don't even know if they were marked Wednesday. It may not even have been necessary to select the WED panties from the package.

Chrishope said:

I think that makes sense. They were concerned their stories should be consistent, and that they knew nothing of any events between putting JBR to bed and waking up to find the RN.

No one but PR would have known with certainty what size JBR was wearing, but proper sized WED panties would have been assumed by anyone else.

Because the WED pair had to be pulled out of the middle of the package, it seems they were chosen specifically for their WED marking.

Since the size 6s she was wearing that night are gone, we don't even know if they were marked Wednesday. It may not even have been necessary to select the WED panties from the package.

Click to expand...

Chrishope,

I think Patsy said she was not sure what underwear JonBenet was wearing, also she never noticed what she was wearing when she undressed JonBenet, and said she was not present when JonBenet prepared herself for the White's party e.g. did she shower, did she change her underwear etc.

Since the size 6s she was wearing that night are gone, we don't even know if they were marked Wednesday. It may not even have been necessary to select the WED panties from the package.

Click to expand...

Precisely, also we do not know if there were a pair of Wednesday size-6's in her underwear drawer, something BPD have never revealed and that is a critical piece of information, as per the staging. I remember checking the evidence logs to count the underwear pairs and noticed that there were no sizes itemized anywhere.

I do not think the Day-Of-The-Week feature on the size-12's is all that important, simply because its absence would neither add nor subtract from the case evidence.

But the fact JonBenet was wearing size-12 underwear patently is important, since we know, unlike any Day-Of-The-Week being present, she should not be wearing them.

That is we can infer from the size but not from the Day-Of-The-Week!

I would argue if we can reason thus about the size then so could Patsy, and with her being caught out over her fabricated a story, I doubt it was her that redressed JonBenet in those size-12's?

John probably dressed JonBenet in those size-12's, did he deliberately keep Patsy in the dark, was he hiding JonBenet's molestation from Patsy, representing her death as an accident, who knows?

Patsy's fabrication about the size-12's being placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer is based on the assumption that they are available.

That they are not demonstrates Patsy's ignorance, the return of the remainder highlights this aspect.

Returning the remaining size-12's does not show that they were in the house when the police searched for them!


.

It seems illogical to me that Patsy redressed JonBenet the final time, in the size 12's. It seems she would have thought they would appear odd to anyone undressing her later. A Mom, would most likely go grab a suitable pair.

Second and to me more important, were the fibers from Johns rare Israeli sweater being present in JonBenets vaginal area.

As for the undies being turned in later, perhaps LE should have been more careful at the scene of the crime, when the R's left the house and not allowed anyone to take ANYTHING out of the house. I think a LOT of things would have been found!!

I think Patsy said she was not sure what underwear JonBenet was wearing, also she never noticed what she was wearing when she undressed JonBenet, and said she was not present when JonBenet prepared herself for the White's party e.g. did she shower, did she change her underwear etc.

Click to expand...

Right, so this is consistent with the overall story they agreed to tell law enforcement - JB dressed herself, and at the end of the night was carried in from the car, her shoes and pants removed, long johns put on her, and then tucked into bed. The Rs then pretend not to know anything that happened in the house until PR got up the next morning.

It's not believable that PR didn't notice size 12s (and of course it's unlikely JB was wearing 12s) when the long johns were supposedly put on her. But it's not possible to prove she did see the baggy size 12s and took notice.

I do not think the Day-Of-The-Week feature on the size-12's is all that important, simply because its absence would neither add nor subtract from the case evidence.

But the fact JonBenet was wearing size-12 underwear patently is important, since we know, unlike any Day-Of-The-Week being present, she should not be wearing them.

That is we can infer from the size but not from the Day-Of-The-Week!

Click to expand...

I think that makes sense, but I also think there is some room to ponder why the WED 12s were chosen, as opposed to any other day size 12s. The redresser may have supposed it to be important, when really it wasn't.

I would argue if we can reason thus about the size then so could Patsy, and with her being caught out over her fabricated a story, I doubt it was her that redressed JonBenet in those size-12's?

John probably dressed JonBenet in those size-12's, did he deliberately keep Patsy in the dark, was he hiding JonBenet's molestation from Patsy, representing her death as an accident, who knows?

Click to expand...

That is certainly a sensible analysis based on the evidence (so far as we know the evidence) but it's very difficult to say anything definite about this case. If I had to put money on it, I'd say PR didn't know about the 12s being on JB, and fabricated the story on the spur of the moment.

But suppose she did know. She can still say the same thing to police - they were in the drawer. The police didn't find any, but that doesn't preclude the "intruder" taking the remaining 12s (as unlikely as that is). It also doesn't preclude the "intruder" bringing the one pair with him (as unlikely as that is). She didn't really have to say anything except that she didn't know JB was wearing size 12s, and didn't know how they got on her. The fact that she did say they were in the drawer indicates maybe she supplied too much info -false info. It seems like a smoking gun, logically, but really it isn't. No one can explain where the size 12s came from, but not being able to explain it doesn't get us very far.

Patsy's fabrication about the size-12's being placed into JonBenet's underwear drawer is based on the assumption that they are available.

That they are not demonstrates Patsy's ignorance, the return of the remainder highlights this aspect.

Returning the remaining size-12's does not show that they were in the house when the police searched for them!

Click to expand...

Except that we know at least one pair was available that night. They had to come from somewhere. Consistent with an RDI theory, there must have been a package of size 12 day of the week panties somewhere in the house.

And it seems sensible that PR told of buying size 12s on the NY shopping trip because there might have been some way for police to check (and they might already have checked). So PR probably knows they are available somewhere in the house, even if not in the drawer as she claimed.

Before going further, I'm sorry if it seems I keep going around and around on this. I'm trying to sort it out in my head, and using feedback from you and other posters to try to resolve this aspect of the case. I'm kind of thinking out loud as I plod along.

What if PR didn't know JB was wearing size 12s when "found" but did know size 12s were available in the house. At that point, she knows another redressing has taken place, and she knows who did it, and she can start to put together the reasons why.

It seems illogical to me that Patsy redressed JonBenet the final time, in the size 12's. It seems she would have thought they would appear odd to anyone undressing her later. A Mom, would most likely go grab a suitable pair.

Second and to me more important, were the fibers from Johns rare Israeli sweater being present in JonBenets vaginal area.

As for the undies being turned in later, perhaps LE should have been more careful at the scene of the crime, when the R's left the house and not allowed anyone to take ANYTHING out of the house. I think a LOT of things would have been found!!

Click to expand...

I think it's unlikely too. It does look odd, and it is noticeable.

I agree, the fiber evidence is more important.

With all the evidence Pam removed from the house, it's pretty much impossible to say what was there the night of the murder, and what wasn't.

21merc7 said:

Who besides Patsy would know if JB was originally wearing size 6 Wednesday panties?

Maybe this is where the Wednesday issue lies. I would think JB would have soiled herself upon the blow to the head, the stun gun, or even the actual strangling. One of those would have brought about soiling, both urine and fecal matter. So, to try to keep things continuous a Wednesday pair would be selected in cover up mode. That could have created a slip up with JR and PR being questioned, so why not stick with what you already knew and held in your mind that JB was wearing.

Obviously getting rid of the soiled size 6s would be a priority.

Click to expand...

No one else may have known what SIZE she was wearing, but there was a chance that someone else at the White's party that day may have noticed she was wearing WEDNESDAY panties. JB was well-known to ask for help in the bathroom from anyone in earshot, and her parents knew this. It was too risky- if police questioned any of the other party guests about whether they noticed anything odd about her panties, that would be reason enough to need to replace them with another identical (except for size) pair of "Wednesday" panties, which only one other pair was available in the house: the size 12s bought for Patsy's niece, and police had already made it clear to Patsy in the interviews that they though it VERY unusual for her to be wearing such large panties.
One other thing about JB's panty drawer. It was NOT in her bedroom dressers, but rather in a drawer in her BATHROOM. An intruder would not have known to look in a bathroom for underwear. Most people keep underwear in their bedroom dressers.

"I do not think the Day-Of-The-Week feature on the size-12's is all that important, simply because its absence would neither add nor subtract from the case evidence"....
__

...except that both John and Patsy knew that there were plenty of more appropriately sized underwear available in her bathroom drawer to choose from to replace the now missing soiled 4/6s that she was probably wearing...so again, why choose the size 12s in the first place?

maybe, as stated above, the ones she was originally wearing did say Wednesday, and the redresser thought it significant for a few reasons stated above, to replace with another Wednesday pair and there weren't any other Wednesdays of appropriate size available in the drawer. but that person would have to know to even find/get the size 12s to choose from...especially if they were not in the drawer! Where were they? Unwrapped in the wine cellar? In one of the bags of stuff to take on their trips? The unopened package really was in the drawer, but removed when the new pair was put on her, and Patsy lied saying they were all 'fair game' and opened by JonBenet at an earlier time?

And i am trying to take this step by step too, and agree with a lot of where we are evolving to...but it does bring up further questions... and that realization above about if Patsy didn't know about the size 12s at first, then upon finding out, she realizes what has happened ...yes, i thought of that too....i am reaching a lot of the same conclusions as we keep talking through this...

And, I think JR was more likely to choose that size as well, by the way...

But we are still then at the point/place of where were the size 12s and why were they chosen? if they were located upstairs in the drawer, they would not have been chosen first among all the 15 more appropriately sized ones for JBR...unless redresser felt a need to replace with that large of a size because they were the only ones that matched the messed up ones that were removed, or they really didn't know any better - but even if that were the case, there were not any other pairs found in the drawer that size, so they would have to have been picked up by chance, and anyone would have noticed the difference in a pair made for an 85-lb. girl as compared to the size of the 4/6 ones all sitting in the drawer!

the more you sift through the logic, the more you can eliminate reasons for that size, and the more questions that are raised.

see, and if they were just a pair borrowed from the White's because she had an accident over there, and she was given those to replace that night, as sometimes did happen....then why wasn't that determined, and why would patsy have to come up with the new package that matches five years later?
___
"The fact that she did say they were in the drawer indicates maybe she supplied too much info -false info. It seems like a smoking gun, logically, but really it isn't. No one can explain where the size 12s came from, but not being able to explain it doesn't get us very far".


Here's the thing, though...if these were not a smoking gun, why the need to match stories and explain why she is wearing that size? Why need to supply false info, or state too much in the first place to account for the underwear? If it was known that she often had accidents and could possibly be borrowing a neighbor's underwear while visiting elsewhere, why not have that be a plausible answer, especially since Patsy stated she didn't pay attention to what JBR is wearing? ...Cuz she really thought it was possible that JBR would have chosen those underwear? Did she really? But if that were the case, the package, or the other pairs would have been found, wouldn't they? Like I usually say, if one is true the other can't be....the stories don't add up. Since they had to keep their stories straight and explain why she was in that pair, and even feeling it was important as to produce them years later - I think made it a smoking gun by doing those very things.

The thing is, if JBR had been the one to dress herself in those panties as Patsy said she did, then the other pairs would not have been missing..unless she only owned one pair. But the Ramseys produced a package of them later on...and the story is they came in a weekset pack, so we know they wanted to show there was a set.

This means: the package was not part of JBRs regular use, and was removed for a reason in the first place.

That is a smoking gun, if you ask me....

OK i don't know the facts like any of you do and i dont try to so i mostly just ask questions .SO something i had heard before was that one the underwear were from somewhere else like maybe where they had went on vacation thats a guess and i ask that because i have a daughter and she in everything is a size 7 she is 8 years old but just buying different brands of underwear or other clothing too its allways different from 7 in a say fruit of the looms to a 7 in a say tiffany's or anywhere different brands are usually different sizes i know also for me i get screwed up when it goes from sizes to small medium or large so i guess what iam wondering is could a mistake of been made like different brand from normal or were they in a size instead of a number . and the one other thing about underwear i wonder about is the dna back then is was very very common for thier to be underwear bins and allthough your not sapose too iam sure girls try them on and if its to big or small they put them back so if u bought the whole underwear and pajama set at the same store could the dna not be from the same person that worked in the store at the time and that handles the items ...like i said all just questions .

Continuing the evolution -

We know at least one pair of size 12 day of the week panties, labeled Wednesday, were available in the house. (If we don't agree on this we have to shift to IDI)

One way to make a little "sense" of PRs claim is to assume she told the truth. That would explain JB wearing the size 12s. JB put them on herself. One package was opened and they could no longer be given as a gift, so were placed in JBs undie drawer and were available for her to put on.

This doesn't explain where the size 12s came from, but then, neither does any other scenario. I mean we can't prove where they came from because the police supposedly didn't find them.

On the subject of not finding them - http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-inventory.htm


Items removed 12/26/96

On page 12 of the inventory list, we see "Underwear (9JRB) " On page 12 we see "Girls underwear (56BAH) and then a few lines down, "(1) Girls underwear (61 BAH) and "(1) Girls underwear (62 BAH)" Then at the bottom of page 13 we see "Blue pair of girls underwear (76BAH)" On page 14 we see "Two pair girls underwear (76BAH)"

Note the last two items have the same number (76BAH)

Items removed 12/27/96''

On page 6 we see "pair of underwear" (45BAB)

On page 7 "underwear (8JRB) and "Girls underwear (36BAH) " Then we see "Girls underwear-1 (56BAH)",
"Girls underwear-1 (61BAH)" and "Girls underwear-1 (62BAH)"

We've already seen the last 3 items further down the list.

Later on page 7 we get "Five pair of girls underwear (76BAH)" and
"Two pair of girls underwear (77BAH)"

So a lot of underwear was removed from the house, but the inventory list doesn't really tell us about size or day of the week.

I'd have to say that we don't really know what the police found or did not find, with any certainty.

We might speculate that they didn't find a package of size 12 day of the week panties, because the Rs supply those years later. If the Rs knew the size 12s were found, there is no reason to have "found" the package years later and give them to police. Still, they may only have been supplying the unopened package.

Another problem with determining what was found or not found by police is that they don't start making an evidence inventory list until after JB is "found". Earlier in the day, everybody and his brother were at the house and were free to wander. Also the Rs were not searched (I think I have that correct) before leaving. So who knows what was taken before the police started to inventory items.