The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[OliviaG1996]

I can’t comment on this without knowing if you are being serious.

I'm serious. You can comment now.

I agree with most everything you say here, excerpt I have no opinion on whether or not jbr could have opened the package.

Maybe we’re looking at more than one person; sure. After all, there are 5 unsourced DNA samples.

:notgood:

The so-called practice note. My second most fav piece of evidence. I tried to find the answer to your question for a very long time. It seems to come down to this: the so-called practice note is not of sufficient length to determine if it was written by the ransom note author: however, there is nothing to distinguish its author from the ransom note author. It is sandwiched between a (missing) earlier draft and the (removed) ransom note; Thomas, and, as far as I can remember, everyone associated with the investigation thinks it is the beginning of an abandoned ransom note.

Based on the above, I provisionally accept that the so-called practice note and the ransom note are connected.
.

IMO, if there isn't enough handwriting to identify the writer of the "practice note" as the ransom note writer, I can't assume it had anything to do with the crime. Therefore, I don't consider it evidence for RDI or IDI.

Mr Ramsey handed the note to Whitson (who went on to write an IDI book).
…

AK

According to Amazon, Whitson's book got more negative reviews than positive. I haven't read the book, but many reviewers who have say Whitson states many things as fact that have since been pretty much debunked (the stun gun, to be precise).

Anyway, JR had to have a feeling the police were going to collect the notepad anyway, so he probably thought, "Why not make it look like I'm helping them?". The way the police worked that morning, however, I doubt they would've even found the notepad, let alone collected it.

ETA: Happy New Year's Eve, everyone! :newyear:artyguy:

 

[Annapurna]

You're not acknowledging that she was wiped down. There was more blood wiped from her legs than the small amount found in her panties. Police reports state that there is evidence consistent with her being wiped down. This is a vital part of the process of re-dressing her.

Out of curiosity, is there a source that in some way quantifies the amount of urine found in the panties? Would the amount of urine that was enough to stain the floor not wash out the drops of blood in the panties? As I recall I've never seen the drops of blood described as washed out (as in diffused) or watered down. Would this have been stated in the police reports? Since, as we both agree, the urine was most likely released at the time of death (and not out of fear, which seems unlikely as it would require consciousness and that head wound is too severe), then the question remains when was the blood dropped on the panties? Another question would be where exactly all the stains were found. Was the urine in the front and the blood more to the

As there are two options, before and after death, there are only a few scenarios:

1. She was assaulted, wiped down, bled, strangled and urine released.
2.She was assaulted, wiped down, strangled and urine released, the blood then oozes and the small amount found falls on the panties.


Then we have slightly more exotic scenarios:

1. She was assaulted, the paintbrush has her blood on it and it drips onto the panties unnoticed by the perp. She is then wiped down, strangled and urine is released.
2. She is killed, then assaulted. Due to the peri-mortem nature of her injuries the blood is still liquid enough to drip onto the panties, either from wound itself or the tool used to assault.

There is also a question about the fluid found inside the vault of the genitals. In the AR it is described as "semiliquid thin watery red fluid". Additionally the blood found in the vestibule of the vagina is described as semiliquid even the next day when the autopsy was done. So it appears to me that there is a possibility the blood was liquid enough to drip for a while after death.

So back to the question of how much urine was found on the panties vs. on her pants. Was it the amount on her panties so great as to have been only gotten there by primary transfer of liquid? Was it a relatively smaller amount that could have theoretically been transferred by the wet leggings/leggings and the amount on the floor? Although there was carpet on the floor, most basements don't have a layer of padding between the carpet and the concrete so it is possible that there was a puddle not absorbed by the carpet and therefore more could have been absorbed by the leggings over time.

So even completely ignoring the absolutely ridiculous size of the panties, which even LE state as a fact were far too large, there is indeed some question about if the panties were changed. However I would like to assert that the question should be when the panties were changed, as I simply do not agree that she put those on herself when she got dressed for the party.

Just thinking out loud here. Anyone who has any answers to these questions let me know.

 

[UKGuy]

Annapurna

This might assist:

Autopsy Excerpt

EXTERNAL EXAM:The decedent is clothed in a long sleeved whit knit collarless shirt, the mid anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorate with silver sequins. Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt is a white cord. At the knot there is one tail end which measures 5.5 inches in length with a frayed end. The other tail of the knot measures 15.5 inches in length and ends in a double loop knot. This end of the cord is also frayed. There are no defects noted in the shirt but the upper anterior right sleeve contains a dried brown-tan stain measuring 2.5x1.5 inches, consistent with mucous from the nose or mouth. There are long white underwear with an elastic waist band containing a red and blue stripe. The long underwear are urine stained anteriorly over the crotch area and anterior legs. No defects are identified. Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rose buds and the words "Wednesday" on the elastic waist band. The underwear is urine stained and in the inner aspect of the crotch are several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch maximum dimension.

.

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,


So did they find the used panties, if not, why not?

UKGuy,
IIRC, they removed 15 panties, and all of them were used (previously worn!).

The size of the underwear JonBenet was wearing at autopsy was meant to be privileged information, known only to the killer, but it was leaked, prior to Patsy being interviewed, she said this is how she knew JonBenet had been wearing size-12's!

.

Is this all true? Can you source this? Just tell me where to look without being too vague or broad and I’ll look it up myself; thank you.

And, Happy New Year’s!
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Happy New Years!

I'm serious. You can comment now.

Wow. Now I’m speechless.

IMO, if there isn't enough handwriting to identify the writer of the "practice note" as the ransom note writer, I can't assume it had anything to do with the crime. Therefore, I don't consider it evidence for RDI or IDI.

That’s fair. So, the fat that Thomas et. al consider the so-called note to be connected to the ransom note means nothing, or little? Just curious.

According to Amazon, Whitson's book got more negative reviews than positive. I haven't read the book, but many reviewers who have say Whitson states many things as fact that have since been pretty much debunked (the stun gun, to be precise).

I have the Whitson book. On Amazon the book had 50% 1 star, 8% 3 stars and 42% 5 stars. http://tinyurl.com/hq7hlwd

Is that what you call “more negative reviews than positive?”

I’d give it, as a book, a 2 (so booooring), and as a jbr book… a 1 or a 2. Anyway, I’m not terribly interested in discussing it, but, I don’t mind if you want to ask about the book, or get me to look up anything in it.

Anyway, JR had to have a feeling the police were going to collect the notepad anyway, so he probably thought, "Why not make it look like I'm helping them?". The way the police worked that morning, however, I doubt they would've even found the notepad, let alone collected it.
ETA: Happy New Year's Eve, everyone! :newyear:artyguy:

If he thought they’d find the notepad anyway than why wouldn’t he dispose of it along with whatever else RDI think they got rid of? Or, not use it in the first place, etc.

I think the police would have found the notepad. Maybe, they wouldn’t have found it right away, but after the body was found in the house, the notepad would be exactly what they’d be looking for.
…

AK

 

[curiousjo]

JR didn't know that PR had left a practice note in the note pad. He messed up... It was not "the perfect" murder.

 

[Anti-K]

You're not acknowledging that she was wiped down. There was more blood wiped from her legs than the small amount found in her panties. Police reports state that there is evidence consistent with her being wiped down. This is a vital part of the process of re-dressing her.

Out of curiosity, is there a source that in some way quantifies the amount of urine found in the panties? Would the amount of urine that was enough to stain the floor not wash out the drops of blood in the panties? As I recall I've never seen the drops of blood described as washed out (as in diffused) or watered down. Would this have been stated in the police reports? Since, as we both agree, the urine was most likely released at the time of death (and not out of fear, which seems unlikely as it would require consciousness and that head wound is too severe), then the question remains when was the blood dropped on the panties? Another question would be where exactly all the stains were found. Was the urine in the front and the blood more to the

As there are two options, before and after death, there are only a few scenarios:

1. She was assaulted, wiped down, bled, strangled and urine released.
2.She was assaulted, wiped down, strangled and urine released, the blood then oozes and the small amount found falls on the panties.


Then we have slightly more exotic scenarios:

1. She was assaulted, the paintbrush has her blood on it and it drips onto the panties unnoticed by the perp. She is then wiped down, strangled and urine is released.
2. She is killed, then assaulted. Due to the peri-mortem nature of her injuries the blood is still liquid enough to drip onto the panties, either from wound itself or the tool used to assault.

There is also a question about the fluid found inside the vault of the genitals. In the AR it is described as "semiliquid thin watery red fluid". Additionally the blood found in the vestibule of the vagina is described as semiliquid even the next day when the autopsy was done. So it appears to me that there is a possibility the blood was liquid enough to drip for a while after death.

So back to the question of how much urine was found on the panties vs. on her pants. Was it the amount on her panties so great as to have been only gotten there by primary transfer of liquid? Was it a relatively smaller amount that could have theoretically been transferred by the wet leggings/leggings and the amount on the floor? Although there was carpet on the floor, most basements don't have a layer of padding between the carpet and the concrete so it is possible that there was a puddle not absorbed by the carpet and therefore more could have been absorbed by the leggings over time.

So even completely ignoring the absolutely ridiculous size of the panties, which even LE state as a fact were far too large, there is indeed some question about if the panties were changed. However I would like to assert that the question should be when the panties were changed, as I simply do not agree that she put those on herself when she got dressed for the party.

Just thinking out loud here. Anyone who has any answers to these questions let me know.

I’m not sure who your post was addressed to. But (just cuz I’m paranoid doesn’t mean there isn’t anybody after me) I’m going to reply as if it was directed towards me; more specifically, my sequence.

You wrote, “You're not acknowledging that she was wiped down.”

Here is the sequence copied and pasted from my original post. http://tinyurl.com/zsezkjg BBM is where I acknowledged that she was wiped down:

Victim on stomach. Garrotte tightened from behind. Victim urinates. Victim is turned over. Garrote continues to asphyxiate. Clothes pulled down. Garrote continues to asphyxiate. Penetration. Garrote continues to asphyxiate. Area wiped. Clothes pulled back up. By now, victim has been asphyxiated to death. Blood drips into the panties either during the penetration, clean-up or moving of body.

I think the evidence found on the panties tells us that if the panties were changed, they were changed before the attack.
.

In the AR the blood spots are described as “several red areas of staining measuring up to 0.5 inch.”

I’ll come up with a “urine before blood” sequence and post it. But, I don’t know if it matters when the issue seems to be that the panties were over-sized. Next post….

Happy New Year’s!!!
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

THE OVER-SIZE PANTIES

A child sits on the floor, on their bum and leans back a bit and pulls on a pair of panties. I’ve seen kids get dressed like this a thousand times a year. Sitting on the floor, or on the edge of the bed (a chair, a couch).

They sit and they pull the panties up over their bum, lifting when needed, sitting back down. Pull up the waist band until crotch is to crotch. Now, the pants. Put on and pulled up the same way. Then, stand and pull panty waistband to adjust.

In this way the over-sized panties could have been worn crotch-to-crotch with the pants holding them in place. No bunching up, no exposed areas, etc.

Or, the child stand and puts one foot then the other foot through the panty leg-holes and then pulls them up, maybe up to her chest, and then before they drop, or holding them in place with one hand, they put on and pull up their pants.

In this way the over-sized panties could have been worn crotch-to-crotch with the pants holding them in place. No bunching up, no exposed areas, etc.

It’s Christmas. If she dressed herself, why wouldn’t she put on brand new panties? Why would she care if they didn’t fit? What difference does it make if adults think they would be uncomfortable? And, what adult hasn’t ever worn something that was uncomfortable or too big? It would be so easy to pull them up high so that they would “fit” in the crotch. Even after the pants are on over top of them simply by grabbing the panty waistband and pulling up.

C’mon, you guys! Hasn’t anyone ever dressed a child before, or watched one dress themselves. This is such a no-brainer. And, anyone who has had children of the same gender, close together in age, has seen children wearing or dressing themselves in underwear and other clothing that is too large (sometimes, hilariously, for me, in things too small! How can they not tell! Lol) for them to wear – hand-me-downs is what we call them. They don’t notice, they don’t care.

Sitting on the living room floor, Saturday morning cartoons. And, every time they stand up and walk around they have to hold onto their underwear with one hand so they won’t fall down. Good grief!

I think the pictures posted by Jayelles are unintentionally misleading. You could pull those panties up and put pants on over top of them to hold them in place. After the pants are on you could grab the panty waistband and pull them up snug. As a matter of fact, I think to be fair, this is what should have been done and then pictures taken of that, too.

This argument that jbr could not have put on or worn these panties because they were too large is… unconvincing. And, it makes something simple (jbr put on over-size panties) into something bizarre and complex (the Ramseys changed her panties because???, if they changed the panties than why do the panties she was found in have blood, urine??? they hid the package because???? They admitted the panties were theirs because ??? etc???).
…

AK

 

[BBB167893]

PR doesn't seem the type to throw on dirty clothes from the day before.

Names elude me, but there were people who knew her who said the idea was repulsive to her.

 

[BBB167893]

Reading through more pages, I re-read JR's interview or at least the section about undressing JBR that night. Hmmmm. JR says he thinks he took off her shoes and coat but also thinks he would have noticed if she wasn't wearing panties that night. Really? Just by taking off her coat and shoes he can determine if she is wearing panties or not?

He slipped up. This tells me he undressed her further than he admits.

Agreed. For what reason, though?

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,
IIRC, they removed 15 panties, and all of them were used (previously worn!).



Is this all true? Can you source this? Just tell me where to look without being too vague or broad and I’ll look it up myself; thank you.

And, Happy New Year’s!
…

AK

Anti-K,

Paraphrasing since this is common knowledge, Patsy has stated she does not know if JonBenet changed her underwear prior to leaving for the White's party, does not know what kind of underwear JonBenet was wearing when Patsy redressed JonBenet in the white longjohns.

Coroner Meyer's Autopsy Report makes no reference to underwear size!


Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview, Excerpt

8 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Ms. Ramsey, we

9 are going to move on to another area. And

10 what I want to discuss with you is the

11 underpants that JonBenet was wearing at the

12 time that she was discovered on the 26th.

13 We are going to try to get some background

14 information on those from you. Hopefully you

15 can help us out a little bit. Okay?

...

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview, Excerpt

11 MR. LEVIN: What I would like to

12 know is what Mrs. Ramsey's belief, as she

13 sits here, is significant about the

14 underpants. In a normal homicide case, what

15 kind of underpants someone is wearing is

16 typically not national news. Fair enough?

17 THE WITNESS: Yes.

18 MR. LEVIN: But apparently it has

19 become national news, and I just want to get

20 a sense, before I start asking some specific

21 questions, which I hope she can help us

22 with, why you think, what is your

23 understanding of what the significance is.

...

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview, Excerpt

18 Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start

19 with what - I will make it very simple for

20 you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you

21 in possession of or what do you know about

22 the underwear that your daughter was wearing

23 at the time she was found murdered?

24 A. I have heard that she had on a

25 pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.

0078

1 Q. The underwear that she was

2 wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you

3 know where they come from as far as what

4 store?

5 A. Bloomingdales in New York.

6 Q. Who purchased those?

7 A. I did.

Patsy , by inference alone from all the above, knows the underwear is size-12, i.e. she admits purchasing them!

I'll leave it to you to find the Enquirer or Globe reference to the size-12's.


.

 

[otg]

Information about the Bloomies being oversized was leaked from RGJ testimony. I don't know and I won't speculate how or by whom, but someone was feeding information from there to the tabloids. This is how existence of the oversized Bloomies became public knowledge and how (most likely) the Ramseys found out about the fact that investigators were looking into it. That information was published in the April 20, 1999, issue of The Globe (Below). The Ramseys were questioned about this (and other things that came out of the RGJ) in August, 2000. It's very much worth reading that interview (search link below for "bloomi" -- as it is spelled there) to see Patsy squirm and hedge her answers on things about which she obviously has "guilty knowledge". Knowing the size of panties JonBenet had on her body, Patsy tries to claim she usually bought size 8-10, even though every other pair found in JonBenet's room and scattered around the house was size 4-6. Even that snake Lin Wood gets involved making a desperate attempt to try and help her out by volunteering that his 11 year old son "wears underwear that potentially hangs down to his knees." :floorlaugh:

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...amsey-BPD-Interviews-(Atlanta)-August-28-2000

 

[icedtea4me]

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'll do it again: Were any size 8-10 girls' underwear found in the home? I don't recall reading that there were.

 

[otg]

giggle: I'm trying very hard not to have a sargasm here...)

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'll do it again: Were any size 8-10 girls' underwear found in the home? I don't recall reading that there were.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly (I even wrote how to find the exact section):

It's very much worth reading that interview (search link below for "bloomi" -- as it is spelled there) to see Patsy squirm and hedge her answers on things about which she obviously has "guilty knowledge". Knowing the size of panties JonBenet had on her body, Patsy tries to claim she usually bought size 8-10, even though every other pair found in JonBenet's room and scattered around the house was size 4-6.
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...amsey-BPD-Interviews-(Atlanta)-August-28-2000

From that section:

0093
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.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to
0094
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small. lol:more hedging)
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.

​

(* Sargasm: when the urge to make a sarcastic reply is so overwhelming you can only roll your eyes and grunt incoherently.)

 

[OliviaG1996]

Happy New Years!



Wow. Now I’m speechless.

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say it's obvious that whoever had a part in staging this crime wasn't the smartest person around and most likely had never done something like this before.

That’s fair. So, the fat that Thomas et. al consider the so-called note to be connected to the ransom note means nothing, or little? Just curious.

If that's true, it still means little to nothing to me. Unless ST knows something about the "practice note" we don't, I don't think there's enough writing to conclude it has something to do with the ransom note.

I have the Whitson book. On Amazon the book had 50% 1 star, 8% 3 stars and 42% 5 stars. http://tinyurl.com/hq7hlwd

Is that what you call “more negative reviews than positive?”

Yes.

I’d give it, as a book, a 2 (so booooring), and as a jbr book… a 1 or a 2. Anyway, I’m not terribly interested in discussing it, but, I don’t mind if you want to ask about the book, or get me to look up anything in it.

I'm good for now, but I'll let you know. Thank you.

If he thought they’d find the notepad anyway than why wouldn’t he dispose of it along with whatever else RDI think they got rid of? Or, not use it in the first place, etc.

I think the police would have found the notepad. Maybe, they wouldn’t have found it right away, but after the body was found in the house, the notepad would be exactly what they’d be looking for.
…

AK

According to the Bonita Papers, "Whitson and Patterson then asked John for samples of his handwriting. John went to a counter near the spiral staircase and picked up two letter-size pads of white lined paper. John handed both pads to Det. Patterson explaining that one pad contained prior writings of Patsy and the other his prior writings." In short, JR did not just hand over the notepads unasked. He probably felt forced to do so since maybe the notepads were the only things that he could think of that contained his handwriting.

Maybe JR didn't dispose of the notepad because he didn't know that was the notepad PR had written the note in. There was probably other paper in the house that looked similar to the paper the ransom note was written on.

 

[Cranberry]

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say it's obvious that whoever had a part in staging this crime wasn't the smartest person around and most likely had never done something like this before.

If that's true, it still means little to nothing to me. Unless ST knows something about the "practice note" we don't, I don't think there's enough writing to conclude it has something to do with the ransom note.



Yes.



I'm good for now, but I'll let you know. Thank you.



According to the Bonita Papers, "Whitson and Patterson then asked John for samples of his handwriting. John went to a counter near the spiral staircase and picked up two letter-size pads of white lined paper. John handed both pads to Det. Patterson explaining that one pad contained prior writings of Patsy and the other his prior writings." In short, JR did not just hand over the notepads unasked. He probably felt forced to do so since maybe the notepads were the only things that he could think of that contained his handwriting.

Maybe JR didn't dispose of the notepad because he didn't know that was the notepad PR had written the note in. There was probably other paper in the house that looked similar to the paper the ransom note was written on.

Also from JR 6/98 interview:

12 little unusual I would say.
13 LOU SMIT: If I might just
14 touch on a couple of other things. When
15 you, the police officers at one time asked
16 you for a note pad.
17 JOHN RAMSEY: Uh-hum.
18 LOU SMIT: Tell me the
19 circumstances surrounding that?
20 JOHN RAMSEY: Linda Arndt when
21 we found the note and she said look, as a matter
22 of routine, I need samples of your handwriting
23 and Patsy's, just routine, I said I understand.
24 So I grabbed a note pad that had some of Patsy's
25 grocery lists or something on it, and I said
0504
1 this is Patsy's handwriting and they grabbed a
2 pad I had taken some notes on from a seminar and
3 it was on the bar and I said this is my
4 handwriting.
5 LOU SMIT: Where, do you remember?
6 JOHN RAMSEY: This bar.
7 LOU SMIT: And where was
8 Patsy's?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Patsy's was on
10 this table here.
11 MIKE KANE: Okay.
12 VOICE: John, would you point to
13 the bar again?
14 JOHN RAMSEY: This is the back
15 hall in the garage, this little sink bar that I
16 had, the sink was right there. Pad that I
17 picked up.
18 LOU SMIT: Was on that table?
19 JOHN RAMSEY: Was on that
20 table.
21 LOU SMIT: Okay.
22 JOHN RAMSEY: I just gave
23 them the whole pad. I said this is
24 Patsy's handwriting, this is mine.
25 LOU SMIT: Okay. Now, I am
0505
1 going to show you two photographs; that's
2 number 52 and number 645, that shows that
3 particular area. And I will show that for

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Paraphrasing since this is common knowledge, Patsy has stated she does not know if JonBenet changed her underwear prior to leaving for the White's party, does not know what kind of underwear JonBenet was wearing when Patsy redressed JonBenet in the white longjohns.

Coroner Meyer's Autopsy Report makes no reference to underwear size!


Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview, Excerpt


...

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview, Excerpt


...

Atlanta 2000 Patsy Interview, Excerpt


Patsy , by inference alone from all the above, knows the underwear is size-12, i.e. she admits purchasing them!

I'll leave it to you to find the Enquirer or Globe reference to the size-12's.


.

Found it:
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 --
0093
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
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I don't know how to respond to this other than to say it's obvious that whoever had a part in staging this crime wasn't the smartest person around and most likely had never done something like this before.



If that's true, it still means little to nothing to me. Unless ST knows something about the "practice note" we don't, I don't think there's enough writing to conclude it has something to do with the ransom note.



Yes.



I'm good for now, but I'll let you know. Thank you.



According to the Bonita Papers, "Whitson and Patterson then asked John for samples of his handwriting. John went to a counter near the spiral staircase and picked up two letter-size pads of white lined paper. John handed both pads to Det. Patterson explaining that one pad contained prior writings of Patsy and the other his prior writings." In short, JR did not just hand over the notepads unasked. He probably felt forced to do so since maybe the notepads were the only things that he could think of that contained his handwriting.

Maybe JR didn't dispose of the notepad because he didn't know that was the notepad PR had written the note in. There was probably other paper in the house that looked similar to the paper the ransom note was written on.

Not meant to change your mind, but just to show the significance investigators attached to the so-called practice note when it was discovered:

During his examination of Patsy Ramsey’s notepad, Kithcart made a startling discovery. As he thumbed through the pad, looking at the handwriting, he noted what appeared to be the start of another ransom note. The words started out at the top of the page., as the addressing of a name would be written, “Mr and Mrs l” Kolar; p. 93

From Douglas/Olshaker; The Cases That Haunt Us, “As he was going through Patsy’s pad, Kithcart noticed something extraordinary, toward the middle of the tablet, a few words were written on a page in black, felt-tip pen: “Mr and Mrs,” along with a single downstroke that could have been the beginning of a capital R. the paper appeared the same as the one on which the ransom note was written. Apparently, this was a first draft, and after consideration, the writer had decided to address the note to Mr Ramsey only.

“What this meant, of course, is that police could now say with a fair degree of certainty that the three page ransom note was written in the Ramsey house, using their own pad and paper. This narrowed the scenario considerably. Either an intruder (or intruders) had spent a fair amount of time in the house undiscovered, or Jonbenet had been killed by one or more of the three individuals known to be in the house at the same time: John, Patsy, and Burke” p. 281

Thomas; p. 31:
“The case was breaking wide open on two different fronts. About the same time Ramsey found the body of his daughter, a detective discovered what would mark a turning point in the investigation, the existence of a possible practice ransom note in a tablet belonging to Patsy Ramsey”
“[Kithcart] flipped through the [notepad] bearing the word Patsy and, in the middle, noticed a page with a partial salutation written by a black felt-tip pen.
“Mr. and Mrs. I
“The single vertical line seemed as if it could be the downstroke that would start the capital letter R.”
.

Ramsey was asked for something that had his and hers handwriting. The notepad was there, but if RDI, it didn’t have to be there, and it didn’t have to have been used to begin with (especially when one considers that faking a kidnapping contradicts their supposed intent – explaining dead body in house.
…

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

giggle: I'm trying very hard not to have a sargasm here...)

I don't know how to say it any more clearly (I even wrote how to find the exact section):

From that section:

0093
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.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?
25 A. I would say more like six to
0094
1 eight. There were probably some in there
2 that were too small. lol:more hedging)
3 Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
4 A. Not typically, no.

​

(* Sargasm: when the urge to make a sarcastic reply is so overwhelming you can only roll your eyes and grunt incoherently.)

And you couldn't have responded with "No, no size 8-10's were ever found" because................?

 

[TeaTime]

The more I think and read about it, I don't think the panties are very significant in the whole scheme of things. I think JBR wore them to the White's party and was later put to sleep in them. The fronts of the panties and the longjohns were urine stained and for someone to molest her, they just needed to pull down both items of clothing, wipe her off after and then pull the clothing back up.

When the panties were brought home in November, they probably were put in the bathroom drawer but were later moved elsewhere. I just do not see PR counting panties, noticing or remembering for certain what was or was not in JBRs on December 26.

I doubt that LE searched the whole house for size 12 Bloomies before Pam looted the place. For all we know the panties could have been in PRs dresser and were taken on the 28th by PP.