Size 12 Panties

[sissi]

A "Barbie" nightgown belonging to
JonBenet was also found in the wine cellar near her body. (SMF 149: PSMF 149.) JonBenet's
blood was found only on her body and the Barbie nightgown. (SMF 150; PSMF 150





The Court draws the undisputed facts from "Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material
Facts" ("SMF") and "Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Statement of Material Facts"
(PSMF ), in which plaintiff does not dispute the overwhelming majority of defendants'
factual allegations

An undisputed factual statement in a court of law is about as good as it gets,IMO.

 

[TLynn]

The only blood from JonBenet was in her panties.

There was no open wound on her head, neck, or anywhere else (that I know of) that was bleeding.

So, was she wiped with the Barbie gown?

 

[Britt]

An undisputed factual statement in a court of law is about as good as it gets,IMO.

Unless opposing counsel is Darnay Hoffman... lol

 

[BlueCrab]

The only blood from JonBenet was in her panties.

That's correct TLynn. Judge Carnes was disgracefully wrong. Carnes made five significant mistakes about the case in just that one paragraph. She was not qualified to comment on the criminal aspects of the crime, which she didn't understand, while writing an opinion in a separate civil case. There was no blood on the Barbie nightgown. The only blood was the two spots in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, and Carnes didn't even mention that blood.

JMO

 

[sissi]

That's correct TLynn. Judge Carnes was disgracefully wrong. Carnes made five significant mistakes about the case in just that one paragraph. She was not qualified to comment on the criminal aspects of the crime, which she didn't understand, while writing an opinion in a separate civil case. There was no blood on the Barbie nightgown. The only blood was the two spots in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, and Carnes didn't even mention that blood.

JMO[/QUOTE

You are certain of this? How? How can we determine what information is the "correct" information?
JMO

 

[Toth]

You can nit pick all you want about minor discrepancies and misspellings in the Carnes opinion and the like, but the bottom line is still the same. Overwhelmingly on the side of an intruder rather than this groundless obsession of the BPD on the parents.

 

[why_nutt]

You can nit pick all you want about minor discrepancies and misspellings in the Carnes opinion and the like, but the bottom line is still the same. Overwhelmingly on the side of an intruder rather than this groundless obsession of the BPD on the parents.

There is also overwhelming evidence Patsy should be dead by now of her Stage 4 ovarian cancer, yet she lives. So what does that say about the subject of overwhelming evidence, except that sometimes overwhelming evidence is not ultimately fact?

 

[Barbara]

You can nit pick all you want about minor discrepancies and misspellings in the Carnes opinion and the like, but the bottom line is still the same. Overwhelmingly on the side of an intruder rather than this groundless obsession of the BPD on the parents.

The above is only Toth's opinion. It is the opinion that he has been assigned to today.

It seems Toth and Mibro continue to feel they are above following the rules set BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

 

[BlueCrab]

BlueCrab: "That's correct TLynn. Judge Carnes was disgracefully wrong. Carnes made five significant mistakes about the case in just that one paragraph. She was not qualified to comment on the criminal aspects of the crime, which she didn't understand, while writing an opinion in a separate civil case. There was no blood on the Barbie nightgown. The only blood was the two spots in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, and Carnes didn't even mention that blood."



sissi: "You are certain of this? How? How can we determine what information is the "correct" information?"


BlueCrab's response: There are certain sources of information that can be considered reasonably reliable. These include first responder police reports, depositions under oath, eye witnesses, transcribed police interviews of witnesses, published reports from respected newspapers and magazines, and autopsy reports. The autopsy report states:

"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 in maximum dimension."

IOW, there was blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties that Judge Carnes didn't even know about. The blood in the crotch of the panties was significant evidence because it involved the source of the foreign DNA. She wrote in her opinion that the only blood was on JonBenet and on the Barbie nightgown. Carnes was far from being qualified to comment on the details of the murder, she made numerous false comments, and therefore her conclusions should not be given serious weight.

JMO

 

[sissi]

BlueCrab's response: There are certain sources of information that can be considered reasonably reliable. These include first responder police reports, depositions under oath, eye witnesses, transcribed police interviews of witnesses, published reports from respected newspapers and magazines, and autopsy reports. The autopsy report states:

"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 in maximum dimension."

IOW, there was blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties that Judge Carnes didn't even know about. The blood in the crotch of the panties was significant evidence because it involved the source of the foreign DNA. She wrote in her opinion that the only blood was on JonBenet and on the Barbie nightgown. Carnes was far from being qualified to comment on the details of the murder, she made numerous false comments, and therefore her conclusions should not be given serious weight.

JMO

I agree to a point,there are those whose info is more reliable than others, I'm not certain I agree with you on news accounts of any sort(they rely on sources)and Steve has proven to be the most unreliable of the sources,admitting in deposition his info was often second and third hand,and often in error.
I tend to follow the information provided not by ones entrance time into the case but by one's track record of honesty. Example,I don't want someone to say the word incest was apparent in a crime scene photo of a dictionary and discover 7 years later the photo was a Ramsey photo that didn't relate in time to the crime. I don't want to be told renowned experts think it isn't a dna case ,when later it is explained they didn't have access to results and were basing opinions on police "opinions".
I do not dispute the finding of blood and urine in the panties,as I don't dispute any information available from the autopsy. It suggests to me,she wasn't redressed ,that the panties were on her,as were the long johns,which IMO negates any importance found in Jonbenet having on the size 12's.
The finding of blood on the Barbie gown I believe is curious,I believe it is a fact that needs to be considered,it could be simply the murderer placed the broken paint brush on the gown while readying to leave ,or more? Imo it speaks more of a deliberate taking of that gown for some sinister purpose than the claim of static cling. I do consider the murderer taking his own crime scene photos,and have considered the original taking of Jonbenet somewhat in the way of Singular theory.
IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

sissi,

I asked you for your source that blood was on the Barbie nightgown. You responded by saying that Judge Carnes said it in her opinion when she threw out the Wolf v Ramsey lawsuit. But then I responded by saying that Carnes made numerous errors when writing about the murder evidence and, in effect, didn't know what she was talking about. She had presided over a civil case and was not qualified to comment on the detailed criminal aspects of the JonBenet murder without hearing all of the evidence. All she knew was Lou Smit's side of the evidence, and she even booted that.

Is Carnes the only source for stating there was blood on the Barbie nightgown? If so, then I don't believe there was blood on the Barbie nightgown. Carnes is not a credible source.

JMO

 

[BlueCrab]

sissi,

In regard to the size 12 panties, you said you don't believe her underwear was changed by the killer nor by anyone else because the underwear and the longjohns were urine stained.

I respectfully disagree. Size 12 underwear were for a girl twice the size of JonBenet, and Patsy herself said JonBenet doesn't wear size 12's. There were only size 4's and size 6's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, and the size 12's were from a previously unopened package.

The urine stains on the underwear and the longjohns were obviously from post-mortem discharge after JonBenet had been re-dressed by the killer. JonBenet had been sexually penetrated and then cleaned up to hide the sexual aspects of the crime. The killer left numerous dark blue fibers on the inner thighs and the labia of JonBenet from the wipe-down cloth he had used.

IMO the size 6 underwear JonBenet had been wearing were likely badly stained, so to complete the coverup of the sexual battery he had gone upstairs and fetched clean underwear, but all he could find was the size 12's, so he used them.

JMO

 

[Shylock]

Carnes is not a credible source.

Carnes isn't a credible anything. The woman only got half a story, and it appears she didn't even understand that portion of it.

IMO

 

[sissi]

Early in the investigation,before the autopsy was made public,during the days when Arndt was claiming the luminol showed what was "consistent" with semen,the barbie nightgown was said to have blood on it.
This could have been an error,of course,however,it could be something not so publicly shared,one little secret that was kept until the Carnes decision.
Carnes was not the first source.
IMO

 

[BlueCrab]

Early in the investigation,before the autopsy was made public,during the days when Arndt was claiming the luminol showed what was "consistent" with semen,the barbie nightgown was said to have blood on it.
This could have been an error,of course,however,it could be something not so publicly shared,one little secret that was kept until the Carnes decision.
Carnes was not the first source.
IMO

sissi,

I think the luminol was used when stains on the body of JonBenet were thought to be semen but turned out to be smeared blood. To my knowledge, liminol was not used on the Barbie nightgown because of suspected blood stains.

Judge Carnes said the ONLY blood at the crime scene was on JonBenet and on the Barbie nightgown. She is totally wrong. There was blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, which is clearly described in the autopsy report. She made other statements of error as well. Therefore, when it comes to the Ramsey crime scene evidence, Carnes is not credible and her opinions should not be relied upon.

JMO

 

[Toltec]

Patsy was in the den when John brought JonBenet upstairs. Fleet White preceded John and he screamed "Call an ambulance". Fleet then entered the den and picked up the phone.

JonBenet had been "missing" for seven hours...and an anxious and despondent Patsy does not react when she hears screaming?!

A persons first instinct is to react when screaming occurs...they tend to run towards the person screaming. That is exactly what Priscilla and Barbara did...but not Patsy. Her precious daughter is missing yet she does not react to the commotion???

Patsy buys the size 12 undies in November and then allows JonBenet to keep them. She tells LE that she placed the new package of undies in JB's panty drawer. Why does JonBenet decide on that very day to wear the new underwear? When a child is allowed to keep something like underwear...then they tend to put them on immediately.

Patsy told LE that JonBenet wore more of a 6-8 size underwear yet there were no size 8 underwear in her drawer. She lied.

It was Patsy who told LE that the new package of underwear were in JB's panty drawer yet we are expected to believe that LE did not confiscate them???

IMO

 

[sissi]

sissi,

I think the luminol was used when stains on the body of JonBenet were thought to be semen but turned out to be smeared blood. To my knowledge, liminol was not used on the Barbie nightgown because of suspected blood stains.

Judge Carnes said the ONLY blood at the crime scene was on JonBenet and on the Barbie nightgown. She is totally wrong. There was blood in the crotch of JonBenet's panties, which is clearly described in the autopsy report. She made other statements of error as well. Therefore, when it comes to the Ramsey crime scene evidence, Carnes is not credible and her opinions should not be relied upon.

JMO

The autopsy did cover the blood stains "on" Jonbenet,I would give Carnes a pass for considering the stained clothing as being on Jonbenet. The matter of the barbie nightgown would not have been covered in the autopsy,as it wasn't part of it,it was simply property taken under warrant with other items.Whatever the luminol discovered on Jonbenet ,I am not sure has become part of record,
I totally agree that the luminol was not likely used on the gown.
IMO