The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[MurriFlower]

As I said, semantics. Patsy admittedly dressed JonBenet, stating what she had dressed her in, to sleep in that night. The long johns became her pj bottoms that night. Are you going to argue that by Patsy dressing her in long johns, she wasn't using them as pj's? Sheesh!

All I can figure out, is that having no real proof, you have to argue semantics in this case. No matter whether you like the wording or not, the warrant is a legal document.

You are very funny. It is not semantics when RDI sees a reference in a LEGAL DOCUMENT (which they believe is a FACT) to oversized panties. You jump around and post numerous smilies to celebrate your win. However, when it's pointed out that this same document, (in the very same sentence), contains information stated as fact that we clearly know is INCORRECT, you accuse me of being picky. Sheesh yaself!!

 

[MurriFlower]

You're HALF-right! I don't believe anything that's clearly wrong!



And I'm not alone!



I'm more interested in why you'll defend her over everything except this. Moreover, I'm interested as to why you think such a great, grand, glorious hero would make such an obvious (YOU say) error!



Murri, do you remember what I said about the "finger?"



SOMEONE lacks credibility, all right!

No, I told you I believe the DA was incompetent, I just believe the BPD was more infinitely worse. Don't make my comparisons look as if I believe ML was some kind of hero, because that's just not true.

Now, back to the issue at hand. We have a statement that says:"she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female." You have seized upon the part that says "oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female" as being evidence that this is a FACT, thus supporting your theory. However, I pointed out that the first part of the sentence "she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas" stated as a FACT is CLEARLY INCORRECT. You then try to justify how you can say one part of the sentence is correct and the other is incorrect. And this evidence that you believe to be a fact and corroborating of your own theory was compiled by a person you have absolutely no respect for and whom you have recently called a 'moron'.

Try to argue the issues and not just put up fingers or smilies.

 

[SunnieRN]

You are very funny. It is not semantics when RDI sees a reference in a LEGAL DOCUMENT (which they believe is a FACT) to oversized panties. You jump around and post numerous smilies to celebrate your win. However, when it's pointed out that this same document, (in the very same sentence), contains information stated as fact that we clearly know is INCORRECT, you accuse me of being picky. Sheesh yaself!!

First off there are no smilies in my post. Secondly, I am very weary of your trite insults. Whether or not long johns are 'officially' pj's, JonBenet was dressed in them for sleeping that night. This makes them Her pj's on December 25, 1996.

 

[cynic]

Amazing.
I’m relatively certain that even this will not help, but here is some more context from the affidavit.

DAXIS said he removed the light colored pajamas that JonBenet was wearing and also removed underwear she was wearing. He described the underwear as "knickers". Repeatedly throughout this telephone conversation DAXIS referred to the underwear worn by JonBenet as "her knickers".
DAXIS advised Michael Tracey that he removed the "knickers" from JonBenet and took the item with him after he left the Ramsey residence by way of the same point that he entered into the home. DAXIS added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by DAXIS was several sizes too large for JonBenet. DAXIS mentioned that the oversized underwear also bore the day of "Wednesday". It should be noted that at the time of discovery JonBenet Ramsey at the lower level of her residence, she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female. The underwear bore the day name of "Wednesday". The telephone call between Michael Tracey and DAXIS was recorded by way of an audiocassette-recording device.

Her sleepwear was referenced as pajamas, because Karr referenced it as such.
The fact that she was found in the size 12 – 14 panties is beyond question.

 

[BBB167893]

Interesting, I thought you would defend your political system, you know, 'freedom and the American way'.

Freedom and the American Way are our ideals, Murri, not our political system. Point of fact, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians and government are the ENEMIES of freedom and are inherently evil, no matter how necessary they might be. They will always be corrupt, because that's what power does. It's for that reason that the Founders wanted the size of government to be limited, for terms of service to be limited, for the public to be ever vigilant and informed, etc. Indeed, when asked what kind of country he'd given us, Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it."

The problem is, and this speaks to the DA Mary Lacy, sometime in the last century or so, government got bigger and made more seductive promises, and the people--the ones the Founders trusted with their country--have become more apathetic. There are a lot of reasons for this, too many to explain right now.

This speaks to the problem with the Boulder DA's office: they're more like a line of monarchs than elected officials. This is due to the political climate of Boulder itself. To put it bluntly, Murri: they just don't care. They've made that perfectly obvious.

So don't act too surprised when someone questions Mary Lacy's fitness for office, because most politicians in America are considered at best, morons; at worst, crooks!

I'm surprised you believe it is corrupt.

You obviously don't know many Americans, then! A lot of us are smart enough to KNOW that it's corrupt, and that the Founders didn't WANT us to trust politicians!

So the corruption was also in election fraud then? Because this is where this 'moron' and 'mental eunuch' was elected.

At this point, nothing would surprise me. But no, the electing of this moron and mental eunuch has more to do with voter apathy. At best, the people of Boulder don't care; at worst, they want a DA who isn't too tough on criminals.

 

[MurriFlower]

Freedom and the American Way are our ideals, Murri, not our political system. Point of fact, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians and government are the ENEMIES of freedom and are inherently evil, no matter how necessary they might be. They will always be corrupt, because that's what power does. It's for that reason that the Founders wanted the size of government to be limited, for terms of service to be limited, for the public to be ever vigilant and informed, etc. Indeed, when asked what kind of country he'd given us, Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it."

The problem is, and this speaks to the DA Mary Lacy, sometime in the last century or so, government got bigger and made more seductive promises, and the people--the ones the Founders trusted with their country--have become more apathetic. There are a lot of reasons for this, too many to explain right now.

This speaks to the problem with the Boulder DA's office: they're more like a line of monarchs than elected officials. This is due to the political climate of Boulder itself. To put it bluntly, Murri: they just don't care. They've made that perfectly obvious.

So don't act too surprised when someone questions Mary Lacy's fitness for office, because most politicians in America are considered at best, morons; at worst, crooks!



You obviously don't know many Americans, then! A lot of us are smart enough to KNOW that it's corrupt, and that the Founders didn't WANT us to trust politicians!



At this point, nothing would surprise me. But no, the electing of this moron and mental eunuch has more to do with voter apathy. At best, the people of Boulder don't care; at worst, they want a DA who isn't too tough on criminals.

Ah yes, I see. Now who was it that said "a country gets the politicians it deserves"??

 

[MurriFlower]

Amazing.
I’m relatively certain that even this will not help, but here is some more context from the affidavit.

DAXIS said he removed the light colored pajamas that JonBenet was wearing and also removed underwear she was wearing. He described the underwear as "knickers". Repeatedly throughout this telephone conversation DAXIS referred to the underwear worn by JonBenet as "her knickers".
DAXIS advised Michael Tracey that he removed the "knickers" from JonBenet and took the item with him after he left the Ramsey residence by way of the same point that he entered into the home. DAXIS added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by DAXIS was several sizes too large for JonBenet. DAXIS mentioned that the oversized underwear also bore the day of "Wednesday". It should be noted that at the time of discovery JonBenet Ramsey at the lower level of her residence, she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female. The underwear bore the day name of "Wednesday". The telephone call between Michael Tracey and DAXIS was recorded by way of an audiocassette-recording device.

Her sleepwear was referenced as pajamas, because Karr referenced it as such.
The fact that she was found in the size 12 – 14 panties is beyond question.

Nope. This is a quote from Daxis. "DAXIS added he placed underwear or "knickers" onto JonBenet that he brought with him. The underwear brought by DAXIS was several sizes too large for JonBenet. DAXIS mentioned that the oversized underwear also bore the day of "Wednesday"."

Interesting to see that RDI is now taking the word of Daxis as truth.

OK, I'll say it again for the benefit of those who choose not to read thoroughly anything I write. JBR was found in size 12 panties from Bloomingdales, which were designed for a 10 year old. They were large but not excessively so, and drew no comment from those who saw her wearing them either in life or death.

 

[BBB167893]

No, I told you I believe the DA was incompetent, I just believe the BPD was more infinitely worse.

Thank you for straightening that out.

Don't make my comparisons look as if I believe ML was some kind of hero, because that's just not true.

Well, I'm sorry. I saw you agree with HOTYH's bit about "deserving re-election and gratitude," and figured you actually agreed.

Now, back to the issue at hand. We have a statement that says:"she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female." You have seized upon the part that says "oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female" as being evidence that this is a FACT, thus supporting your theory.

If you say so.

However, I pointed out that the first part of the sentence "she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas" stated as a FACT is CLEARLY INCORRECT.

Right.

You then try to justify how you can say one part of the sentence is correct and the other is incorrect.

Right again.

And this evidence that you believe to be a fact and corroborating of your own theory was compiled by a person you have absolutely no respect for and whom you have recently called a 'moron'.

No, I think this is where we went wrong. I think the evidence was already compiled a long time ago. The idea of the oversize panties is not new. It's been around for quite a while. Indeed, just type in "JonBenet" "oversize" and "underwear" into Google and you'll come up with plenty of those mainstream media sources HOTYH LOOOOVES so much that state 12-14 as fact.

Try to argue the issues and not just put up fingers or smilies.

Murri, I guarantee you, you have my full attention.

 

[BBB167893]

Ah yes, I see.

I sure HOPE so! Because I'd hate to have to go through all of that again!

Now who was it that said "a country gets the politicians it deserves"??

Actually, the quote is, "people get the government they deserve," but it's much the same. And it was Alexis de Tocqueville.

 

[MurriFlower]

No, I think this is where we went wrong. I think the evidence was already compiled a long time ago. The idea of the oversize panties is not new. It's been around for quite a while. Indeed, just type in "JonBenet" "oversize" and "underwear" into Google and you'll come up with plenty of those mainstream media sources HOTYH LOOOOVES so much that state 12-14 as fact.

You gave the distinct impression that ML was responsible when you posted this:

Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
So desperate. Let me remind you, Murri, it was your friend, Mary LACY who ISSUED that warrant!

Yes, I don't believe she actually wrote it down herself, probably just signed it on the bottom, so if that is ISSUED then she did it.

It is what it contains is INCORRECT that is the issue at hand.

Mainstream sources saying that the panties were of a size to fit a 12-14 year old are also incorrect.

When I first came on here, they were referred to as size 12's (still were until recently). Size 12 Bloomingdale girls clothing is designed for a 9-10 year old. I'm just posting the size chart again, in case you missed it.

So on a regular sized, 6 year old girl, they were generous, even perhaps large, but NOT OVERSIZED.

I can say this with complete confidence, because no one who saw her wearing them either alive or dead, noticed or commented at the time on them being excessively large.

 

[MurriFlower]

First off there are no smilies in my post. Secondly, I am very weary of your trite insults. Whether or not long johns are 'officially' pj's, JonBenet was dressed in them for sleeping that night. This makes them Her pj's on December 25, 1996.

my bold

Really, no smilies? Here's a recent selection of your smilie posts.

I think Cynic has dispelled that there were any inaccuracies as well as the fact that undies are undies and that a size 12 or 14 is in no way appropriate for a six year old! Brilliant Cynic!:great::great::great:

And Super Dave goes two for two. Ding ding ding! :woohoo:

Oh mygawd Dave I love ya!!:great::woohoo::rocker:

Should I post the Wiki definition of lie again??

If you are weary of 'trite insults' then I am also weary of RDI's, as well as the smilies and silly pictures. If you want to discuss evidence regarding this case, then do so. If you just want to amuse yourself and your RDI friends, then get ready for more.

 

[DeeDee249]

Plenty of people (especially men) might describe a pair of longjohns on child as "pajamas". They are easily used as such, were obviously light-colored (not really white, or gray or beige, but that kind of waffle-weave thermal "heather oatmeal" most moms are all familiar with. JB's sleeping attire was perfectly appropriate. Nothing unusual about it, including leaving the white Gap top on for sleeping.
It is counterproductive to continue to play word games concerning the thermal bottoms. We KNOW what she was found in. We just don't know when she was dressed in them, before the crime or after. There was no blood on them. There WAS blood on the pink nightgown. And while Patsy's description of what she put on JB and when is entirely possible, it may be that she wore the nightie first.
Had there been no blood on the pink nightie, I'd have to say (as I originally thought) that the nightie came out of the dryer clinging to the white blanket by static cling, and the stagers were unaware -JR: "That wasn't supposed to be there". The blood changes things a bit- and I'd like to know if the blood was splatters or a stain from seepage or a drop or 2. That makes a difference. To just say "blood" tells us very little. Maybe that's the idea.

 

[cynic]

When I first came on here, they were referred to as size 12's (still were until recently). Size 12 Bloomingdale girls clothing is designed for a 9-10 year old. I'm just posting the size chart again, in case you missed it.

So on a regular sized, 6 year old girl, they were generous, even perhaps large, but NOT OVERSIZED.

I can say this with complete confidence, because no one who saw her wearing them either alive or dead, noticed or commented at the time on them being excessively large.

There is no way to know during what time period that chart was appropriate for Bloomingdale’s.
References from LE and posters who purchased “Days of the week” panties while still available indicate that there was group sizing at least for that line of underwear.
Regardless, and more to the point, the chart you reference, gives guidelines for weight and height.
JBR was 47” tall and weighed 45 pounds. On the chart that makes her a size 6 - 6x
Jenny was 11 or 12 years old. On the chart she would be 12 or size 14.
Clearly oversized.

 

[MurriFlower]

Plenty of people (especially men) might describe a pair of longjohns on child as "pajamas". They are easily used as such, were obviously light-colored (not really white, or gray or beige, but that kind of waffle-weave thermal "heather oatmeal" most moms are all familiar with. JB's sleeping attire was perfectly appropriate. Nothing unusual about it, including leaving the white Gap top on for sleeping.
It is counterproductive to continue to play word games concerning the thermal bottoms. We KNOW what she was found in. We just don't know when she was dressed in them, before the crime or after. There was no blood on them. There WAS blood on the pink nightgown. And while Patsy's description of what she put on JB and when is entirely possible, it may be that she wore the nightie first.
Had there been no blood on the pink nightie, I'd have to say (as I originally thought) that the nightie came out of the dryer clinging to the white blanket by static cling, and the stagers were unaware -JR: "That wasn't supposed to be there". The blood changes things a bit- and I'd like to know if the blood was splatters or a stain from seepage or a drop or 2. That makes a difference. To just say "blood" tells us very little. Maybe that's the idea.

DD can you expand on the blood on the pink nightie? I thought this was only conjecture of people who could also see dolls etc in the picture Uk posted. Is there a source for it?

Now about the longjohns & gap top -v- pyjamas, I see what you mean, but there are men on this forum and they have no difficulty in calling the clothing what they are rather than just saying 'pyjamas'. By the same token, it's very important that we get the size of the panties correct also, if only because RDI use it as part of their 'totallity of evidence'. If the panties were size 12 for a 9-10 year old, that is completely different to a pair that is made to fit a 12 - 14 year old girl? This keeps being brought up, but has morphed from size 12's to a size suitable for 12-14 year olds, which is incorrect, regardless of the gender of the person who reported it and regardless of whether it was reported here or in a warrant. I brought up the pyjamas just to illistrate that the panty size was also incorrect.

 

[MurriFlower]

There is no way to know during what time period that chart was appropriate for Bloomingdale’s.
References from LE and posters who purchased “Days of the week” panties while still available indicate that there was group sizing at least for that line of underwear.
Regardless, and more to the point, the chart you reference, gives guidelines for weight and height.
JBR was 47” tall and weighed 45 pounds. On the chart that makes her a size 6 - 6x
Jenny was 11 or 12 years old. On the chart she would be 12 or size 14.
Clearly oversized.

Maybe when PR bought them, she assumed that size 12's were for a 12 year old, only to find out later they were designed for a 9-10 year old and gave them to JBR.

 

[cynic]

Maybe when PR bought them, she assumed that size 12's were for a 12 year old, only to find out later they were designed for a 9-10 year old and gave them to JBR.

The size in the affidavit is corroborated by the 2000 interview of Patsy.
They were size 12 -14.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

JBR...45#
Size 6...35#-45#: made for someone JBR's weight
Size 12...74#-100#: made for someone at least 29 pounds heavier than JBR


JBR...21"-22" waist
Size 6...19"-22" waist
Size 12...24"-26" waist: made for someone with a waist at least 2" bigger than JBR

As I've mentioned before, I wore a size 14 girls panty when I was a grown woman (5'1", 100#). I had a niece just at JBR's age at that time. My panties would have swallowed her whole.


I have a pair of longjohns that I wear as PJs all the time. I imagine anyone would describe them as PJs, "bed clothes," or something similar.

 

[DeeDee249]

DD can you expand on the blood on the pink nightie? I thought this was only conjecture of people who could also see dolls etc in the picture Uk posted. Is there a source for it?

Now about the longjohns & gap top -v- pyjamas, I see what you mean, but there are men on this forum and they have no difficulty in calling the clothing what they are rather than just saying 'pyjamas'. By the same token, it's very important that we get the size of the panties correct also, if only because RDI use it as part of their 'totallity of evidence'. If the panties were size 12 for a 9-10 year old, that is completely different to a pair that is made to fit a 12 - 14 year old girl? This keeps being brought up, but has morphed from size 12's to a size suitable for 12-14 year olds, which is incorrect, regardless of the gender of the person who reported it and regardless of whether it was reported here or in a warrant. I brought up the pyjamas just to illistrate that the panty size was also incorrect.

I really can't add too much more about the blood because we have been told so little about it, BUT in the evidence listed in the search warrant, it is listed as "blood stained". The way I see it described seems to indicate it was small droplets of blood or splatters. BTW, there is a whole forensic science just for blood splatters. I'd have liked to see if the WC was tested with a fluoroscope (I don't think it was). We know a fluoroscope was used on the basement carped area, and it indicated urine.
It is frustrating, because we are all studying the case in hindsight. I feel the house and the body were released from custody far too soon. The whole house was a crime scene- there were SO many more questions to be answered. Keeping JB another day or two, would possibly have allowed the exact cause of the round marks to be determined. Mayer wanted to get "rid" of JB like a hot potato.
About the panties- I've HAD a little girl who wore cotton panties just like that. There is a difference in sizes. Not so much between one size to the next, but if you skip a few there is a BIG difference. For example- there isn't a big difference between a child's size 6 and 8 pants. But jump ahead to a child's size 12 pants and no way a child who wore size 6 could have worn them, even if she were a bit big for her age.
I think we need to stop the bickering about the panties. They were TOO BIG, Patsy did admit to buying them for a bigger child, and that should really put paid to it.
They (Jenny's panties) were found on JB- FACT. Patsy did not deny this. She also said they were the ones SHE bought. And she admitted buying them for Jenny (so they were a bigger size than JB wore).
So the coroner didn't note the size- so what? He didn't note the size of her other clothing either.
The only thing in dispute is whether Patsy lied about putting the whole pack of Jenny's panties in JB's drawer as she said, or if you believe the panties were pulled out of a wrapped gift in the basement. That's pretty much it. Simple, but it matters a lot to the crime, because an intruder (even one who may be familiar to the family) would not have known that panties Patsy bought for her niece were inside a wrapped gift in the basement.

 

[DeeDee249]

Maybe when PR bought them, she assumed that size 12's were for a 12 year old, only to find out later they were designed for a 9-10 year old and gave them to JBR.

JB wasn't 9 or 10. She was 6. BIG difference. A child her age couldn't wear clothing meant for a 9-year old either.
Patsy bought kids' clothes all the time. That shopping trip wasn't her first Rodeo. She knew full well that size panty WAS for a child about that age. I explained before that in the US, girls' (and little boys as well) undies are sized by age. There is usually a kind of dual sizing for some things (6-8 would for a child aged 6-8 years, including a larger 6 year old).

 

[Agatha_C]

SunnieRN, this has nothing to do with what children wear to bed in winter in the US. Don't try to change the subject.

It is to do with the statement: "she was in fact attired in light colored pajamas and oversized underwear designed for a twelve to fourteen year old female." This is INCORRECT.

She was in a white cotton top and light pink cotton thermal pants. Twist it however it suits you, it would still be considered light pajamas. They claim they put her in them to sleep, making it her pajamas. It was good enough for the Rs and their team of henchmen. In fact it was down right important to them. I cant understand who you're defending here. To even disagree with the Rs team of Experts, that IDI likes to point out and refer too, is confusing.