Inconsistencies

New Posts

DeeDee249 said:
Of course, my questions were rhetorical. I know why they lied about the flashlight, pineapple and BR being awake.
But the panties...they are a puzzle, and I know you disagree with me but I feel they DO have a significance. I think that she was wearing a Wednesday pair that day to the White's - her OWN pair in her OWN size. I think the Rs feared that someone at the White's may have seen them, if they had helped her in the bathroom (as she was known to ask). Later on, when the description of her clothing became public- someone could have come forward to say that when THEY saw her, she was wearing something different. I don't think they were worried that her own clean (albeit stained) panties from her panty drawer had fecal staining- as they all did. I think what they were worried about was that they needed an "unbloodied" identcial pair that also said "Wednesday". The size didn't matter- to THEM. They thought it wouldn't matter to anyone else either.
Click to expand...

DeeDee249
You may be correct over the size-12's but would they not have to be the same color too? Although you suggest the size does not matter, what about any alleged witness who saw them, would they not note the size, e.g. JonBenet would not need to take of her size-12's they would just fall to the floor?

imo to stage a crime-scene using those size-12's, then to remove the remaining pairs, particularly when you are setting up an intruder scenario, is simply counter-productive. I reckon the Wednesday detail is probably a consequence of it being available, and not the main reason why she was redressed in size-12's.
 
well,another thought comes to mind;just as they wanted LE to SEE BR was 'asleep',they wanted LE to SEE JB was wearing Wed. panties...therefore as such she was properly dressed for a bedtime abduction of the very same night.And that's probably only one reason she was said to be already 'asleep' when arriving home;no chance of her changing clothes on her own.
 
JMO8778 said:
well,another thought comes to mind;just as they wanted LE to SEE BR was 'asleep',they wanted LE to SEE JB was wearing Wed. panties...therefore as such she was properly dressed for a bedtime abduction of the very same night.And that's probably only one reason she was said to be already 'asleep' when arriving home;no chance of her changing clothes on her own.
Click to expand...

JMO8778,
But what relevance does Wednesday have to LE, what does that tell anymore than a Tuesday pair would? Also they were hidden beneath the longjohns, and why would any intruder redress JonBenet after sexually assaulting her, what significance does Wednesday have for the intruder, as Mr. Spock might say It does not compute Captain?

Then the intruder makes off with the remaining 6-pairs of size-12's, where does that fit in to the LE perception?


therefore as such she was properly dressed for a bedtime abduction of the very same night.
Click to expand...
It would be more consistent if she had been wearing the barbie-gown, or had she?


.
 
trixie said:
Hi DeeDee, ok I have a question maybe you know the answer to. I have read that JB didn't know how to read. I don't know where I read it, something about Burke helping her read the names on gifts when she was passing them out Christmas morning, I think. Anyway, do you think Patsy helped her get dressed to go to the Whites? I think Patsy has said no. But then of course there is that story of the fight about JB not wanting to wear what Patsy wanted her to wear. I know my thoughts are all over the place here. What my question is is if Jonbenet didn't know how to read and Patsy didn't help her get dressed then how did she happen to be wearing the Wednesday panties in her own size that day? If she were wearing them it means Patsy lied(imagine that) and did help her get dresed that day, or Jonbenet actually could read and picked them out and got herself dressed without Patsys help. Which do you think it is and BTW do we know for sure that she was wearing the Wednesday panites in her own size that night?
Click to expand...

I am sure PR did help her get dressed for a Christmas dinner at someone else's home. She micro-managed every aspect of her daughter's life, ESPECIALLY how she was dressed and coiffed. I would be amazed if she 'd let get get ready for a party without her help. This doesn't necessarily mean that she physically put the clothes on her (though I believe she did) . She could have laid her clothes out for her to put on, underwear included.
Yes, I also read that she couldn't read. Many kids can't read at 6. Some do, but it isn't unusual that a child of 6 can't read.
 
UKGuy said:
DeeDee249
You may be correct over the size-12's but would they not have to be the same color too? Although you suggest the size does not matter, what about any alleged witness who saw them, would they not note the size, e.g. JonBenet would not need to take of her size-12's they would just fall to the floor?

imo to stage a crime-scene using those size-12's, then to remove the remaining pairs, particularly when you are setting up an intruder scenario, is simply counter-productive. I reckon the Wednesday detail is probably a consequence of it being available, and not the main reason why she was redressed in size-12's.
Click to expand...

I have seen those Bloomies Day of the Week panty sets. They still sell them. The colors are identical in the set, regardless of the size. (for example- ALL the Wednesday pairs had pink flowers, all the Thursday pairs had yellow, etc.) The same fabric is used for all the sizes.
 
PMPT,571

Patrick Burke argued that if threir clients cooperated,it would give credence to the idea that they were involved in the death of their daughter.
Click to expand...

NO SH **!!!
:liar: :bang:
 
This is something I found because of a different thread and thought some of you might want to take a look at it. It was kind of fun looking around the site.

http://www..com/ramsey.htm

Have fun,

Salem
 
Salem said:
This is something I found because of a different thread and thought some of you might want to take a look at it. It was kind of fun looking around the site.

http://www..com/ramsey.htm

Have fun,

Salem
Click to expand...

That was really interesting. Reminded me of the "Paul is dead" thing with the Beatles in the 70s.
 
Salem said:
This is something I found because of a different thread and thought some of you might want to take a look at it. It was kind of fun looking around the site.

http://www..com/ramsey.htm

Have fun,

Salem
Click to expand...

it is an interesting site.Mark McClish's statement analysis is a good one,too.


www.statementanalysis.com/cases/


What is interesting is I also applied this to some of the ufo 'alien abduction' cases,and,(no surprise there),they came out as lies.But then if you study those using true crime techniques,it's easy to see how their stories are fakes.Some of them run like clockwork..just one lie after another.
Some of those are from ppl whom you wouldn't normally think would lie..but the evidence is there.I think ppl forget that no one is accusing them of any type of crime...only of being guilty of lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 209 more.
Total: 3,782 (members: 210, guests: 3,572)

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
3,572
Total visitors
3,782
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,648
Messages
17,956,948
Members
228,575
Latest member
Onaquest
Back
Top