Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 85 to 96 of 191
  1. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    jameson addressed the topic - and dismissed it. That was to be expected. From then on in, the other members diverted the discussion into one about the bedwetting - that was also one outcome I predicted (i.e. diversion - not necessariily bedwetting).

    This isn't about bedwetting. Actually, if it weren't for the fact that Patsy admitted knowing about the huge knickers, it could even have been twisted into intruder evidence. If Patsy's reaction had been different, I would have considered it intruder evidence because I do not think there is any way Jonbenet chose to wear those knickers OR that any self-respecting, caring mother would have put them on her.

    I think it's another bugaboo.

    I've seen old photos of poverty showing little children wearing nothing but vests and too large knickers dangling down round about their knees - barefoot and dirty. I associate these too large knickers with poverty and deprivation. I don't associate them with the Ramsey family.

    My photos show how uncomfrotable they would have been to wear - how they would have slipped down - maybe even fallen down gradually.

    Anyone who attempts to excuse that or dismiss it needs a reality check.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  2. #86

    Default

    It was mentioned somewhere about the panties being new and unwashed. I'll have to go back and read. That would negate what PR said about them being opened and in the drawer, free for all. Is it possible that the panty package with remaining panties were still in the house but out of sight, like down in a Christmas stocking or something? Didn't sister take loads of stuff out? No mistaking - the intruder is really out of the loop on this one. Jayelles visual is shocking - and Jayelles is right - we have another bugaboo, with IMO what I see as PR's explanation/acceptance of the Wednesday panties.

  3. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    jameson compares Jonbenet wearing thse massive knickers to her own children wearing her nightgown or their father's t-shirt.

    There is no comparison!

    Have jameson's children ever put on their parent's underpants with the crotch dangling at the knees and the waistband slipping down over their hips?

    My daughters have pinched my nightshirts and Tootsie wore one of my t-shirts as a nightie on our recent trip because I'd acidentally packed both her nighties in the "big" suitcase instead of packing one of them in the overnight bag. My older daughter also pinches her father and brothers' t-shirts for a borrow. Upper/outer garments are quite, quite different.
    However if I'd forgotten to pack knickers for her - there is no way I'd even consider letting her use a pair of mine!

    jameson & the RST's failure to even question this is absolute proof of their blinkered view of the case. It seems that to them, the Ramseys are above and beyond reproach on any matter!
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    This is real evidence - the kind of evidence used in a court room, and that is where it matters. Nothing that the chief Rambot jameson states on her forum is evidence of anything except her own one-sided view. She can swear something is a fact and ignore whatever she wants to ignore. None of it matters one bit, because, if this case EVER gets to a courtroom, which I doubt will happen, at least in my lifetime, there will be two sides to the story, not one, and the kind of "evidence" the Rambots use at the swamp will be demolished by opposing counsel.

    Excellent job, Jayelles. This is how I pictured those big panties on a six year old of JB's age - crotch hanging to her knees. She would have been pulling them up constantly, had she picked them out and worn them by herself.

    Patsy was lying. What reason would Patsy have to lie about anything?

    Oh my..
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  5. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles

    My photos show how uncomfrotable they would have been to wear - how they would have slipped down - maybe even fallen down gradually.
    I hardly see how they would have EVER stayed up.
    This post, unless it is a legal court document, may not be carried in part, or in its entirety to any other discussion forum or bulletin board without the express written consent of the party who wrote it. It is proprietary to the author and to www.forumsforjustice.org. Violators will be reported to their Internet Service Providers.

  6. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watching You
    This is real evidence - the kind of evidence used in a court room, and that is where it matters. Nothing that the chief Rambot jameson states on her forum is evidence of anything except her own one-sided view. She can swear something is a fact and ignore whatever she wants to ignore. None of it matters one bit, because, if this case EVER gets to a courtroom, which I doubt will happen, at least in my lifetime, there will be two sides to the story, not one, and the kind of "evidence" the Rambots use at the swamp will be demolished by opposing counsel.

    Excellent job, Jayelles. This is how I pictured those big panties on a six year old of JB's age - crotch hanging to her knees. She would have been pulling them up constantly, had she picked them out and worn them by herself.

    Patsy was lying. What reason would Patsy have to lie about anything?

    Oh my..
    Interestingly, they are NOT how I imagined them. I imagined them to fit at the waist and leg openings and to be baggy all over - like a baby's plastic pants look like when they are a bit on the large side. I thought the leg and waist elastic would have pulled those openings in.

    (does that make sense?)

    You are right though about this being evidence - of the kind shown in a courtroom. The pictures clearly show how UNLIKELY it was that JonBenet was wearing them that day and how LIKELY it is that they were put on her after she was no longer conscious and able to care about wearing massive ill-fitting knickers.

    I just had a chat with my Mother about this and I showed her the model with the knickers on. She says that she would never have permitted a child to wear them and that there was no point even in having them on since her bottom would have been exposed back and front.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    It kind of puts to rest jameson's theory that the intruder molested JB by putting her hands down her pants, doesn't it. Why would he have to do that when she would have been practically naked from the ill-fating panties? This is just more example of how jameson makes things up in order to try to fill up those pesky holes that appear in her version of things - see, no one took JB's underwear or long johns off that night - the intruder slid his hands down her pants and blah blah blah.

    Jameson's descriptions of the molestation have always been a bit over the top, perhaps revealing more about jameson than about JB.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  8. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    755

    Default

    Now that we can see how big they were, the question to raise is, how did small blood spots manage to get from JonBenet's body onto the "inner aspect" of the crotch of the underwear, given that said crotch was so very loose that it could not in any reasonable sense be expected to lay flat against her skin in the appropriate area the way well-fitting underwear would? Even if you take into consideration the presence of the long underwear over the size 12, Patsy would have had to carefully smooth the 12 pair over JonBenet's groin before equally carefully pulling up the long underwear to hold the 12 in place. If a person favors an intruder theory, this is also true. Without that careful placement, blood shed from JonBenet's genitals could just as likely have ended up on the long underwear but not the 12, due to the crotch of the 12 having gotten pushed out of place over to the left or right.

    With this explicit size comparison available for evaluation, we have to really, really question now the process by which blood could credibly have gotten on to the crotch of the 12 pair. A simple assault by placing a hand inside her underwear and then a bleed of a couple of drops no longer seems an ordinary result given no assurance that the fabric of the crotch would be where it needs to be for such a result.

  9. #93
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    I've been thinking about the blood found on the underwear, as well. Considering the bad fit of the underwear, there doesn't seem to be any way for the blood to have gotten there EXCEPT after the fact.

    It appears an attempt may have been made to clean JB's genitals, leaving us to wonder how much blood there was before she was cleaned and what other evidence was removed by the cleaning. What the perp failed to take into account, apparently, was that even after the cleaning of visible blood, leakage from her vagina would continue to occur, even after her clothing had been pulled back up.

    Whoever redressed her after the cleaning most likely pulled the too-big underwear up as far as they would go on her, meaning the crotch would have been fitted next to her bottom, and the waistband probably was pulled up over her chest area. The residual blood from her vagina then leaked onto the panty fabric.

    I can't think of any other way it could have happened.
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---

  10. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I think this whole unmentionables thing raises a lot of questions. As Why_Nut points out, the crotch is so loose and dangly that it would be a hit or a miss where they landed if pushed into place by the long johns being hoisted up - unless the knickers themselves were hoisted up to her armpits first.

    Elsewhere, someone posted that it was unlikely that Patsy and Jonbenet would have kept to the days of the week. This is interesting because I had a debate with my husband several weeks ago about this. When we were packing for our trip, some of the days of the week knickers were in in the laundry "chain" and I wasn't fussing about hunting them down to pack. On the day we left, Hubby looked out clothes for Tootsie to wear and he put out Sunday knickers when it was actually a Thursday. I tut-tutted and replced them with Disney knickers because the Thursday was one of the missing days. Hubby asked what the problem was and I said that the whole point about day-of-the-week knickers was that you wear the appropriate day ON that day! Tootsie is fussy about that because she's a neat little girl and she likes things to be right. Another person added that if she was wearing Sunday knickers on Thursday - it might suggest she hadn't changed them for 4/5 days (something I hadn't even thought about but it's true!).

    So from personal experience, I can say that we do always wear the correct day and if the correct day isn't in the drawer -we choose different knickers!
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  11. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    I'm trying to get my head around a thread at WS. Do some people believe that:-

    1) Jonbenet was wearing the 4-6 Wednesday knickers when she was murdered but that

    2) The perp or stager got his/her DNA on them and so

    3) The Wednesday knickers were removed from the 12/14 packet as a substitute?

    This to me would suggest that the perp/stager either didn't know that they were the wrong size or that he/she didn't think the police would notice.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  12. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Hornetsville, NY
    Posts
    8,871

    Default

    Well, that actually isn't a bad theory, Jayelles, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate one of the Ramseys as the perp; in fact, it would implicate them more, since intruders typically don't have knowledge of where certain items of clothing are stored. Most people I know don't store underwear in the bathroom cabinet, so an intruder would have had to have gone rummaging through all the drawers in JB's room and bathroom, and I haven't heard of any such evidence of rummaging through drawers. Besides, why would an intruder take a child from her bedroom down two flights of stairs, then go back upstairs to get more underwear for her?
    Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry,
    the philosophy which does not laugh,
    and the greatness which does not bow before children.

    ---Kahlil Gibran---



Similar Threads

  1. Book Proposal for "Prostitution of Justice" by Thomas C. "Doc" Miller
    By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's Book
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
  2. John Ramsey's '98 Interview...Things That Were "Strange" or "Out Of Place"
    By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
  3. "South Park," "SNL" & "Mad TV" Ramsey Episodes
    By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
  4. The Ramseys and "lynchings" and "lynch mobs"
    By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 20, 2004, 1:25 pm, Sun Jun 20 13:25:02 UTC 2004
  5. Debunking the Seven Pieces of "Evidence" That "Prove" the Intruder Theory.
    By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •