Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516
Results 181 to 191 of 191
  1. #181

    Default

    The tag inside the child's size 12-14 Bloomies purchased by Jayelles in New York on a trip she took there and the tag from the Bloomies package.
    Attached Images Attached Images   
    Last edited by Cherokee; May 29, 2012, 1:01 am at Tue May 29 1:01:06 UTC 2012.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  2. #182

    Default The oversized Bloomingdale’s underwear on JonBenet

    This is essentially a repost of a post of mine from Websleuths, but since my inspiration was the outstanding work by Jayelles here, I thought it would be worthwhile to bring this over FFJ.
    Links to the work of Jayelles:
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7128

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ead.php?t=7107

    • At least one package of size 12-14, “Days of the week,” underwear was purchased by PR at Bloomingdale’s during a trip to New York in November 1996.These were to be a gift for PR’s niece Jenny Davis.Jenny is described by JR as follows:
    Q. Do you recall approximately how big she was in 1996? I know it is a tough question.
    A. She's either a junior or a senior in high school now. And she's fairly stocky.
    John Ramsey, 2000 interview


    • Jenny was 11 or 12 years old in late 1996, PR’s description below:
    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time, how old was Jenny?
    A. I don't know. Probably -- I don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but I don't know exactly how old she was. Q. Would these panties, size wise, be more appropriate for -- is she an older girl?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And I assume a larger girl?
    A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a young woman, but then she was a little girl.
    Q. How old is she now?
    A. She is now 15, I believe.
    Q. So she would have been about 12 or somewhere --
    A. 11.
    Q. -- 11, 12?
    A. Yeah.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • The “Wednesday” panty from the set of size 12-14 Bloomingdale’s panties was what was found on the body of JBR when they examined her at the autopsy.There is no question, whatsoever, that she was wearing those particular panties. The evidence is as follows:
    This warrant for arrest is issued upon affidavit sworn to and affirmed before this court and relating facts sufficient to establish probable cause that the above-named offense has been committed and probable cause that the person named in ths warrant committed that offense.

    Repeatedly throughout ths 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
    Warrant for Arrest upon Affidavit, August 15, 2006 (re: John Mark Karr)


    Q. JonBenet was found wearing the Wednesday Bloomi's underpants, and your understanding is correct, that is a fact, you can accept that as a fact, when she was found murdered. Those underpants do not fit her. Were you aware of that?
    MR. WOOD: Are you stating that as a matter of fact --
    MR. LEVIN: I'm stating that as a matter --
    MR. WOOD: - for a six-year-old child?
    MR. LEVIN: I am stating that as a matter of fact.



    Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you aware that these were the size of panties that she was wearing, and this has been publicized, it is out in the open, that they were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of that?
    A. I have become aware of that, yes.

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • There is no doubt that Patsy bought at least one package of size 12 – 14, “Days of the week” underwear at Bloomingdale’s in November, 1996.
    Q. (By Mr. Levin) Well, let's start with what - I will make it very simple for you, Mrs. Ramsey. What information are you in possession of or what do you know about the underwear that your daughter was wearing at the time she was found murdered?
    A. I have heard that she had on a pair of Bloomi's that said Wednesday on them.
    Q. The underwear that she was wearing, that is Bloomi's panties, do you know where they come from as far as what store?
    A. Bloomingdale’s in New York.
    Q. Who purchased those?
    A. I did.

    Q. Do you recall when you purchased them?
    A. It was, I think, November of '96.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • Patsy claimed that it was JonBenet’s idea to purchase them:
    Q. Was it something that was selected by JonBenet?
    A. I believe so.

    Q. Was it your intention, when you purchased those, for those to be for her, not for some third party as a gift?
    A. I bought some things that were gifts and some things for her. So I don't --
    Q. Just so I am clear, though, it is your best recollection that the purchase of the underpants, the Bloomi's days of the week, was something that you bought for her, whether it was just I am buying underwear for my kids or these are special, here's a present, that doesn't matter, but it was your intention that she would wear those?
    A. Well, I think that I bought a package of the -- they came in a package of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. I think I bought a package to give to my niece.
    Q. Which niece was that?
    A. Jenny Davis.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000

    • PR claimed that she was going to give them as part of a gift to Jenny, but for somehow ended up keeping them for JBR instead:
    MS. HARMER: I guess I am not clear on, you bought the panties to give to Jenny.
    THE WITNESS: Right.
    MS. HARMER: And they ended up in JonBenet's bathroom?

    A. Right.
    Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Was there - I'm sorry. Do you recall making a decision then not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet express an interest in them; therefore, you didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --
    A. I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • According to PR, JBR opened the package and put them on:
    Q. Okay. What we are trying to understand is whether -- we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it.
    A. I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • PR would never admit to ever dressing her in the large panties.
    MS. HARMER: But you specifically remember her putting on the bigger pair?
    And I am not saying --
    THE WITNESS: They were just in her panty drawer, so I don't, you know, I don't pay attention. I mean, I just put all of her clean panties in a drawer and she can help herself to whatever is in there.

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • PR further claimed that the size difference was minimal, and had no problem with JBR wearing the oversized panties:
    Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it was, if it had caught your attention or came to your attention, do you think you might have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't fit, put something on that fits, that is inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
    had come to your attention –
    A. Well, obviously we, you know, the package had been opened, we made the decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and use them because, you know, we weren't going to give them to Jenny after all, I guess, so. I mean, if you have ever seen these little panties, there is not too much difference in the size. So, you know, I'm sure even if they were a little bit big, they were special because we got them up there, she wanted to wear them, and they didn't fall down around her ankles, that was fine with me.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • Despite the fact that only size 4-6 panties were found in JBR’s panty drawer, PR claimed that JBR normally would wear size 8-10.
    Q. (By Mr. Kane) Okay. Were you aware that these were the size of panties that she was wearing, and this has been publicized, it is out in the open, that they were size 12 to 14? Were you aware of that?
    A. I have become aware of that, yes.
    Q. And how did you become aware of that?
    A. Something I read, I am sure.
    Q. And I will just state a fact here. I mean, there were 15 pairs of panties taken out of, by the police, out of JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is that where she kept -
    A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    Q. -- where you were describing that they were just put in that drawer?
    A. Yes.
    Q. Okay. And every one of those was either a size four or a size six. Okay?
    Would that have been about the size pair of panties that she wore when she was six years old?
    A. I would say more like six to eight. There were probably some in there that were too small.
    Q. Okay. But not size 12 to 14?
    A. Not typically, no.

    MR. KANE: Okay.
    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) And you understand the reason we are asking this, we want to make sure that this intruder did not bring these panties with him, this was something --
    A. Right.
    Q. - that was in the house.
    A. Yes.
    Q. And we are clear that, as far as you know, that is something that was in this house?
    A. Yes.
    Q. -- that belonged to your daughter, these panties?
    A. Correct.
    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • PR also downplayed the difference in size between Jenny and JonBenet.
    Q. Was it something that, the fact that she is wearing these underpants designed for an 85-pound person, did you ever -- and I will give you a minute to think about it because I know it is tough to try to pin down a couple of months of casual conversation -- do you recall ever having any conversations with her concerning the fact that she is wearing underwear that is just too large for her?
    A. No.

    Q. Knowing yourself as you do, if it was, if it had caught your attention or came to your attention, do you think you might have said, JonBenet, you should, those don't fit, put something on that fits, that is inappropriate? Do you think, if it came,
    had come to your attention –
    A. Well, obviously we, you know, the package had been opened, we made the decision, you know, oh, just go ahead and use them because, you know, we weren't going to give them to Jenny after all, I guess, so. I mean, if you have ever seen these little panties, there is not too much difference in the size. So, you know, I'm sure even if they were a little bit big, they were special because we got them up there, she wanted to wear them, and they didn't fall down around her ankles, that was fine with me.
    MR. MORRISSEY: Did you ever see if they fell down around her ankles or not?
    THE WITNESS: No.




    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) At the time, how old was Jenny?
    A. I don't know. Probably -- I don't know. She is older than JonBenet, but I don't know exactly how old she was.
    Q. Would these panties, size wise, be more appropriate for -- is she an older girl?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And I assume a larger girl?
    A. Well, at that time, no, not -- I mean, she is not -- I mean, today she is a young woman, but then she was a little girl.
    Q. How old is she now?
    A. She is now 15 , I believe.
    Q. So she would have been about 12 or somewhere --
    A. 11.
    Q. – 11, 12 ?
    A. Yeah.
    Q. And based on the, I guess, dimensions that Mr. Levin has talked about, these would have been a size appropriate for her?
    A. Uh-huh (affirmative).

    Patsy Ramsey interview August 28, 2000


    • Is PR telling the truth, or was she caught in a lie? Is the size difference minor as PR seems to suggest?
    The physical differences between JonBenet and Jenny would be as follows, (based on averages from various sites, and autopsy information)



    Jenny would have stood at least 10 inches taller that JBR, weighed at least 40 pounds more and have hips that were about 6 inches larger.
    These are very significant differences and it’s obvious that clothing of any sort for one would be clearly inappropriate for the other.
    Here is an approximation of the size difference between the two girls



    In children’s sizes we are going from small to large:





    http://www.usatourist.com/english/tr...ens-sizes.html

    Jayelles purchased from Bloomingdale’s an identical pair of size 4-6 “Days of the week” panties and photographed them alongside a pair of 12-14 panties.
    The disparity in size is striking.
    My wife purchased size 6, 12 and 14 children’s underwear, and I photographed them.
    The brand is Hanes and the difference is similarly striking.

    According to Jayelles, her measurements of the Bloomingdale’s panties are:
    Size 4/6 - measure 8.5 inches from waistband to crotch and waistband is just under 17 inches unstretched.

    Size 12/14 - measure 12 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband is 22 inches unstretched.

    My measurements of the Hanes panties, which are single sized and not range sized as the Bloomingdale’s panties are, are as follows:

    Size 6 - measure 8.75 inches from waistband to crotch and waistband is 17 inches unstretched

    Size 12- measure 11.75 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband is 22 inches unstretched.

    Size 14 - measure 12.25 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband is 23 inches unstretched.

    The green/blue Hanes panties are size 6
    The orange/purple Hanes panties are size 12
    The solid blue Hanes panties are size 14













    I feel that this confirms the sizing that Jayelles found (taking into consideration the difference in brand and sizing convention.)
    For those that do not believe that this is accurate, I would encourage them to purchase these sizes and see for themselves. Seeing is believing.

    PR lied at least three times during the course of questioning regarding the oversized panties.
    • She tried to say that Jenny was a “little girl” and imply that her panty size would not be terribly dissimilar to JonBenet.
    • She tried to say that she commonly bought size 8-10 panties for JBR, thereby making the size 12 – 14 panties seem less unusual
    • She tried to say that the size 12 – 14 panties were only “a little bit big”
    Additionally, I don’t believe that JonBenet picked out and wore these panties on Christmas day as PR suggested, nor do I believe that PR had any plans for those panties other than giving them to her niece. I believe that the panties were wrapped as a gift, but something happened which changed those plans, something which necessitated removing the Wednesday panties from the package in which they were wrapped and redressing JBR in them.

    These are the physical characteristics of the daughter of Jayelles:
    Height 47 inches (same as Jonbenet)
    Weight 46 lbs (1lb heavier than Jonbenet)
    Chest - 22 inches
    Waist - 20 inches
    Hips - 23 inches
    Thigh - 13 inches


    One objection that comes up occasionally is that perhaps oversized panties were used because JonBenet was wearing Pull-Ups, however, Patsy’s testimony suggests otherwise.
    Patsy insisted in two interviews that, while JBR continued to have bed wetting issues, she was trying not to use Pull-Ups, instead utilizing a plastic sheet on the bed:

    PR: If I just didn’t take her to the potty and make her go to the potty before bedtime, she very likely would wet the bed.
    TT: Ok. You have any idea about, has this been going on for how long? Any time that she broken and didn’t have any bed wetting problems and then started back up or anything like that.
    PR: No, no, she just, I mean I’ve had her in pull-ups until very recently. I kind of thought it might be better, I mean pull-ups and those pamper things are so absorbent, that you can’t you know, the child can’t feel if they’re wet or not. So I thought well it might just be better if she felt wet than being…
    Patsy Ramsey, 1997 interview


    TOM HANEY: In the video that the police took walking through, which was taken some time later, there are -- there are packages of Pull-ups.
    PATSY RAMSEY: They would be in there, yeah.
    TOM HANEY: All right. They are partially hanging out in the video?
    PATSY RAMSEY: Yup.
    TOM HANEY: Would those be the Pull-ups that you would normally put on JonBenet?
    PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
    TOM HANEY: Do you recall the last time you put those on her?
    PATSY RAMSEY: It hadn't been for quite some time, but I remember buying them to take a few with us on the cruise, thinking that maybe a combination it would be like on the cruise, and I didn't want her to spoil the mattress. So I bought a new package, and probably had taken some out and put them in the suitcase I was packing. But she hadn't really worn them, you know, very much recently.
    TOM HANEY: Do you recall prior when the last time you put Pull-ups on her?
    PATSY RAMSEY: No.

    Patsy Ramsey, 1998 interview


    Also:

    In the summer of 96, JonBenét started wearing those diaper-type underpants—Pull-Ups. She even wore them to bed. There was always a wet one in the trash. By the end of the summer, Patsy was trying to get her to do without them. Then JonBenét started wetting the bed again. Almost every day I was there, there was a wet bed. Patsy said she wasn’t going to use Pull-Ups again. She just put a plastic cover on the bed. No big deal to her. By the time I’d come in the morning, Patsy would have all the sheets off the bed and in the laundry. JonBenét’s white blanket would already be in the dryer. The Ramseys had two washer-dryers—one in the basement and a stackable unit in a closet just outside JonBenét’s room.
    Perfect Murder Perfect Town, page 198

    Q. (By Mr. Morrissey) Mrs. Ramsey, prior to going to the Whites, did you see JonBenet in panties? In other words, were you at any point, prior to going to the Whites, in the process of her getting dressed, did you ever see if she was wearing panties?
    A. I mean, I just probably didn't notice. I would, she must have had them on
    or I would have certainly noticed if she didn't have any on.
    Q. When you came home and you got her ready for bed, did you notice if she was
    wearing panties? When you changed her out of the black velvet --
    A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    Q. - type pants --
    A. Right.
    Q. -- and into the long underwear pants --
    A. Uh-huh, right.
    Q. -- the White ones, did you notice if she had a pair of panties on?
    A. Yes, she did. I believe she did.
    Q. Why do you remember that? I mean, what do you remember? I just want to know what you remember about that.
    A. Well, I took the jeans off and put the long leggings on.
    Q. And you noticed that she had panties on in that process?
    A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
    Q. You have to answer yes or no.
    A. Well, I noticed -- I mean, nothing was unusual. I mean, if she hadn't had panties on, it would have been unusual. So --
    Q. So there was nothing unusual there?
    A. Correct.

    Q. When you actually removed those -- you have -- they are black velvet pants?
    A. Yes.
    Q. And did the panties come down with them when you removed those pants, if you remember?
    A. I don't remember.
    Q. If they had, would you remember, or is that too long ago?
    A. It has been a long time.
    Q. But did you change -- did you put a fresh pair of panties on her at that point when you were getting her ready for bed?
    A. No.

    Patsy Ramsey, 2000 interview

  3. #183

    Default

    Once again, excellent work, Cynic! Thank you for bringing this post to FFJ and illustrating Jayelles' experiment in another way with top-notch illustration and explanation. Seeing IS believing, but in the Ramsey case, I'm afraid the IDI motto is, "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?!"

    Maybe this will help OPEN some of the IDI eyes! Thanks, again, for confirming, and further illuminating, Jayelles' Bloomie experiment.

    Bravo!

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Talking

    Thanks Cynic for bringing this here for a good review.
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA

  5. #185

    Default

    Thank you cynic. The visuals you posted are as astounding as Jayelles pictures.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Cynic,

    Once again, the Ramsey's got away with this scenario of the wrong size panties, with Patsy Ramsey even stating the larger ones didn't fall around JonBenét's ankles. This must have infuriated mothers of daughters everywhere! (?). Having sons, not daughters, I would never have bought oversized underpants for them . This is just all too stupid for words. How on earth did Patsy Ramsey get away with these lies under oath?

    As for the wrong size of panties being on JonBenét when she was found, at one time I thought John Ramsey in a panic during the cover-up grabbed the wrong size of panties with a view to the "intruder" having changed her (?).

    I'm thinking if the jury had seen these incredible photographs of this oversized underwear, cynic, they may have considered the guilty verdict,
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  7. #187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee View Post
    Seeing IS believing, but in the Ramsey case, I'm afraid the IDI motto is, "who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?!"
    From the Urban Dictionary:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...tive%20hearing
    Selective hearing.
    One possesses this quality when they hear only what they would like to hear.


    I propose that there also exists “selective vision” and it is frequently used by IDI.

  8. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elle_1 View Post
    Cynic,

    Once again, the Ramsey's got away with this scenario of the wrong size panties, with Patsy Ramsey even stating the larger ones didn't fall around JonBenét's ankles. This must have infuriated mothers of daughters everywhere! (?). Having sons, not daughters, I would never have bought oversized underpants for them . This is just all too stupid for words. How on earth did Patsy Ramsey get away with these lies under oath?
    She didn’t answer these questions under oath, Elle, as she was not being deposed, although your point is still valid because I’m sure she would have told the same lies if she had been under oath.
    There were many topics covered during the course of the interviews that deserved far more extensive questioning, IMO.
    This was an area in which they clearly had Patsy painted into a corner but let her slip away.
    As for the wrong size of panties being on JonBenét when she was found, at one time I thought John Ramsey in a panic during the cover-up grabbed the wrong size of panties with a view to the "intruder" having changed her (?).
    That may been the thought process, hard to say. I know that there are many things that I would have done differently but as I have said on occasion: While you and I might have done something differently, it doesn’t mean that whatever was done on that night didn’t make perfect sense to the people actually there, in the moment, facing those circumstances.
    Although I don’t favor any particular theory as to why JonBenet ended up wearing those oversized Bloomies, I lean slightly toward Patsy as the redresser.
    IF JonBenet owned a set of panties in an appropriate size for her, she may have been worn the "Wednesday" pair that day to the White's party. Matching the day, (Christmas was on a Wednesday that year,) would have been consistent with something that Patsy would have done and I suppose something that many mothers would have done.
    IF JB had worn the correctly sized pair of Wednesday panties, Patsy may have been concerned that someone at the White's may have seen them given that JonBenet occasionally asked adults to help her with wiping.
    In terms of why the correctly sized panties needed replacing in the first place, it’s quite possible that there may have been some physical evidence present that the Ramseys thought should “disappear.”
    It may also have been strictly for psychological reasons, part of “Undoing,” as I outlined in my thread on the subject. I sure many here would not find it inconsistent with Patsy that she would have wanted JonBenet to be “perfect and presentable” even in death.
    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...ad.php?t=10159
    In terms of why the oversized Bloomies, specifically, if Patsy and or John thought that it was important to maintain consistency with what might have been observed at the Whites then that might have been the motivation to go that route.
    Of course it would be a bit of a gamble to assume that the size differential would go unnoticed but perhaps it was thought that if they were pulled off at the autopsy while JonBenet was lying down that it wouldn’t be obvious.
    I'm thinking if the jury had seen these incredible photographs of this oversized underwear, cynic, they may have considered the guilty verdict,
    The inconsistencies and lies found in the interviews given to LE and others would have provided some great material for court.
    Sadly, this happened under the watch of Alex Hunter which, of course, meant that all hope was lost.

  9. #189

    Default

    One portion of the questioning in the 2000 interview has intrigued me for some time.

    Q. (By Ms. Harmer) Mrs. Ramsey, have you ever seen a crime scene photo of the underwear that your daughter was found in?
    A. No.
    Q. Did Lou Smit ever show you a photo?
    A. No.

    Throughout the interview she was shown crime scene pictures but they did not show a picture of the underwear to her, although, clearly there was at least one.
    There would definitely be a picture or pictures of the panties, especially to document the location of the bloodstains as observed during the autopsy
    Yet, Jane Harmer implies that it was a crime scene picture but perhaps she meant to say autopsy picture.

    A read through of this description from PMPT seems to indicate that Meyer may have conducted an examination of a fully clothed JonBenet, followed by an examination of an unclothed JonBenet. The description seems to support the possibility that he may have looked beneath the long johns to check for matching stains but perhaps did not remove them entirely. This all assumes that what follows is an accurate depiction of what Meyer did.

    Shortly after 8:15 A.M. on December 27, Dr. John Meyer entered the autopsy room at Boulder Community Hospital, accompanied by his medical investigators, Tom Faure and Patricia Dunn. Dunn had been at the Ramsey house the previous day and was Meyer’s primary investigator on the case. For the autopsy, Detectives Linda Arndt and Tom Trujillo were on hand for the Boulder police; senior trial deputies Trip DeMuth and John Pickering were there for the DA’s office.
    Attendants unsealed a heavy white plastic bag, revealing JonBenét’s body wrapped in a sterile white sheet. The child was placed on the steel autopsy table, whose slightly inclined subtray permitted fluids to drain into a sink-type apparatus. The sheet was removed and set aside as part of the evidence.
    Meyer knew that in nine out of ten cases of a child’s suspicious death, the perpetrator or an accomplice says that a bike fell on the victim or the child slipped in the bathtub—some accident is concocted to explain the victim’s injuries. Meyer also knew, however, that good forensic pathology usually reveals the real cause of death.
    JonBenét’s body was just as Meyer had observed it twelve hours earlier in the Ramsey living room. Every stitch of her clothing, plus the ligatures on her right wrist and around her neck, remained in place. Paper bags had been sealed around her hands and feet to preserve any possible trace evidence.
    Patricia Dunn took color slides for the coroner’s office, while Detective Trujillo shot photos for the police department. Dunn shot 113 frames, documenting each stage of the procedure. Meyer dictated his observations into a tape recorder. “The decedent is clothed in a long-sleeved white knit collarless shirt, the mid-anterior chest area of which contains an embroidered silver star decorated with silver sequins,” Meyer began. “Tied loosely around the right wrist, overlying the sleeve of the shirt, is a white cord.”
    On the child’s right sleeve, the coroner saw a brownish-tan stain about 2½ by 1½ inches in area, which seemed consistent with mucus from her mouth or nose.
    “There are long white underwear with an elastic waistband containing a red-and-blue stripe.” Meyer also noted urine stains on the underwear, in the crotch area, and at the front.
    “Beneath the long underwear are white panties with printed rosebuds and the word Wednesday on the elastic waistband.” The panties were also stained with urine. At the crotch, the coroner spotted several red spots that were each up to ½ inch in diameter.

    Meyer then recorded the injuries that were visible with the body clothed. Beneath her right ear, at the point where the jawbone forms roughly a right angle, was a rust-colored abrasion about 3/8 by ¼ inch. There was pinpoint hemorrhaging on the upper and lower eyelids.
    Meyer described the cord around the child’s neck: “Wrapped around the neck with a double knot in the midline of the posterior neck is a length of white cord similar to that described as being tied around the right wrist.” He cut through the cord on the right side of her neck and slipped it off.
    “A single black mark is placed on the left side of the cut and a double black ink mark on the right side of the cut.” Meyer stated these specifics in case it would be necessary to reconstruct the cord as evidence. He knew the police would want the knot left intact, to study the technique used to secure the ligature.
    There were two tails of cord trailing from the knot. One was 4 inches long and frayed. The other was 17 inches long and had multiple loops secured around a wooden stick that was about 4½ inches long.
    “This wooden stick,” Meyer said, “is irregularly broken at both ends, and there are several colors of paint and apparent glistening varnish on the surface. Printed in gold letters on one end of the wood [stick] is the word Korea.”
    Fine blond hair, Meyer noted, was tangled in the knot of the cord around the child’s neck as well as in the knot of the cord tied around the stick.
    “The white cord is flattened and measures approximately ¼ inch in width. It appears to be made of a white synthetic material. Also secured around the neck is a gold chain with a single charm in the form of a cross.”
    Meyer then recorded a series of observations about a groove left in JonBenét’s neck by the cord. In front, it was just below the prominence of her larynx. The coroner noted that the groove circled her neck almost completely horizontally, deviating only slightly upward near the back. At some points, the furrow was close to half an inch wide, and hemorrhaging and abrasions could be seen both above and below it. The groove included a roughly triangular abrasion, about the size of a 25-cent piece on the left side of the neck, that Meyer had seen when he first viewed the body at the Ramseys’ house.
    [/B]Continuing with the external examination, [/B]Meyer noticed—and Detective Arndt also observed—a number of dark fibers and hairs on the outside of JonBenét’s nightshirt. Using forceps, Meyer lifted these for later microscopic analysis. Everyone in the room could also see strands of a green substance tangled in the child’s hair. Arndt believed she’d seen the same thing the day before; it was probably some of the holiday garland decorating the spiral staircase that led downstairs from JonBenét’s bedroom.
    Meyer then removed her clothes and set the garments aside to be placed into evidence.
    “The unembalmed, well-developed, and well-nourished Caucasian female body measures 47 inches in length and weighs an estimated 45 pounds,” Meyer dictated. “The scalp is covered by long blond hair, which is fixed in two ponytails, one on top of the head secured by a cloth hair tie and blue elastic band and one in the lower back of the head secured by a blue elastic band. No scalp trauma is identified.”
    Meyer began an internal examination of the body.

    Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Lawrence Schiller, pages 38 - 43

  10. #190

    Default

    I was recapping this topic today at WebSleuths for a poster...yeah, I've clearly lost my mind trying to go through all the years of the convoluted path of this evidence in one post...but thought I'd put it here, as well, for anyone who might not want to read the entire thread or maybe needs a primer for what it contains.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://websleuths.com/forums/showthr...84#post9773484


    Today, 01:30 PM

    KoldKase
    Registered User


    Quote Originally Posted by madeleine View Post
    anyone?pls?
    It's been such a long haul, and Team Ramsey has managed to take an already difficult case which is really hampered by TOO MUCH evidence and make it worse over time with all the changing stories from the Ramseys.

    But here is what I remember about the Bloomies story, from the Ramsey interviews with LE through the years.

    LE collected all of JB's panties from her bedroom/bathroom. A detective specifically stated they were all size 4 to 6, though Patsy tried to convince them JB actually wore size 8-10 when questioned in Atlanta about how large those Bloomies found on the child actually were. She even said there wasn't much difference in a pair two sizes too big and those that actually fit the child. [See my avatar for clarification.]

    During that interview, Patsy stated variously that: she gave JB the package of Bloomies because the child begged for them; JB opened the package herself; that Patsy put the panties in JB's panty drawer; that JB dressed herself and wore them to the White's party.

    Remember that interview was in 2000, with Lin Wood running interference and giving Patsy cues as to when she was getting in trouble, not to mention arguing with the LE interviewers endlessly himself. (Yet another attempt by the Ramseys to pretend to be cooperating when in fact much of the time was spent with LE arguing with Wood so the Ramseys wouldn't in fact answer specific questions or if they finally did, with his argument Wood had given them pre-answer info they needed to dodge any tricky areas.)

    So the upshot was that Patsy was inconsistent in her story and that according to her, there was nothing wrong with JB wearing those huge pair of Bloomies, don't we all wear our underwear 2 sizes too large? (I don't because it's completely uncomfortable--try it. I don't believe for one minute a six year old would be able to keep up that underwear or want to try: see my avatar for a model made by poster Jayelles in her demonstration of how preposterous that would be. The "Bloomies model" link at the bottom of my posts goes to the FFJ threads with the full set of photos and details about the demonstration.)

    We have Patsy also admitting during that 2000 interview that she knew there was some issue over the underwear found on the child, as well. In point of fact, the detective questioning Patsy about this tells her right then and there that they must ask about this because it's important evidence in the event of an "intruder" arrest.

    I mention the specifics of this interview not just because we again see Patsy Ramsey artfully dodging the facts and fudging her answers as she goes to actually make an argument that the Bloomies found on the child were not in any way suspicious, but because she said she already knew in August of 2000 they were an issue and was also told this was important evidence.

    Fast forward...or I should say, hit the SLOW MOTION button...to 2002, when Mary Lacy quit hiding her loyalties and went full-on Team Ramsey, working with Lin Wood to take the investigation of this murder out of the BPD's hands and essentially beginning the final steps in burying it forever during her terms as DA.

    Not until Dec. 2002 did that package of size 12-14 Bloomies, alleged by Wood to be THE package from which those found on the body came, get handed over as evidence to Mary Lacy, then in charge of the investigation, with some fishy story about how they were located. A story which, I might add, was told a couple of different ways by Team Ramsey shills over time.

    Two stories floated at online forums from alleged "inside sources" about how that happened were:

    1. The package was found in boxes the Ramseys had stored in Atlanta, packed at the Boulder home during their move to Atlanta by other private detectives who worked for Team Ramsey after the murder. The boxes then sat in a basement or some such in Atlanta until another detective working for Team Ramsey went through them looking for the infamous "Santa Teddy Bear" after the June 1998 interview in which Patsy saw it in a crime scene photo of JB's beds and claimed she'd never seen it before. (A long hunt for that bear followed, involving another intruder theory hawked endlessly that it was brought to entice JB, etc. Turned out it was a gift/award from her last pageant, with a photo of the bear surfacing on an awards table from that pageant. I don't know if the Ramseys ever found it, but if they did, it hasn't been revealed. Ha.)

    2. In another version of the story, the package was found when the Ramseys and/or their private detectives were looking for their clothing worn at the White's party and the next day, to hand over to the BPD a year after the murder, so that would be around late '97 or early '98.

    [I know this is ridiculous to continue at this point, but after nearly 17 years of this kind of absolute nonsense from Team Ramsey, I am determined to demonstrate the kind of roadblocks put up by the Ramseys in the investigation of their child's murder, though they always claimed they were so cooperative. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK!]

    Did I mention FIVE YEARS after the child's death a critical piece of evidence was finally turned over to Ramsey sympathizer Lacy for "investigation"?

    That would be TWO YEARS after Patsy Ramsey admitted ON THE RECORD to LE that she already knew it was an issue, was told point blank by LE it was important, critical evidence...and yet never ONCE mentioned she knew where that package was during that interview.

    Team Ramsey continued to hold onto that package until Wood managed to stage an unprecedented legal coup in a murder investigation by wresting it away from the only LE agency that should have ever had control over it once it became a murder and not a kidnapping--the BPD.

    I must bring up another point, which I find equally damning against the Ramseys to contemplate: why did some obscure, aged private detective, relegated to sifting through god knows how many boxes for various clothing items or a child's toy, notice this package among all that detritus packed by strangers at the Ramsey's cluttered Boulder home?

    At that time, most of us had never even heard of the size 12-14 Bloomies. Yet this old man not only "found" the package, but pulled it out of thousands of items in boxes and brought it to Team Ramseys' attention, didn't he?

    Did Team Ramsey exclaim, "HEY! IMPORTANT EVIDENCE! IT MIGHT HAVE FINGERPRINTS OR DNA ON IT FROM THAT OLD INTRUDER! LET'S TURN IT OVER FOR PROCESSING IMMEDIATELY!" Um...no. Instead, they hid it from LE for years.

    Let me say that again: THEY HID IMPORTANT EVIDENCE FROM LE FOR YEARS.

    Why would they do that if they were innocent?

    And who actually had the package once it was "found" and where was it during all that time?

    And one more important question I asked myself about this chapter, "The Case of the Mysterious Bloomies": Why didn't they just destroy the package or throw it away with the trash in Atlanta if they were so worried about it they hid it from LE investigators all those years? My guess is whoever "found" it--and I think it was "found" by someone who had a history in LE and who somehow knew how important this evidence was--also knew the laws about destroying evidence in a criminal case. My guess is once he knew it existed, Team Ramsey--including a lot of practicing lawyers and ex-cops--had no choice but to hang onto it with a "promise" they'd turn it over to LE. [:wink: In the next century....]

    How does any of this make sense? Well, of course they had an excuse: they didn't trust the BPD! THEY TRUSTED THE INTRUDER WHO MURDERED THEIR CHILD MORE THAN THEY TRUSTED THE BPD! So they waited until they had someone they trusted in charge of the investigation!

    Which brings up another question: how did they know THAT would ever happen? What if Lacy hadn't been elected? Or hadn't gone full out Team Ramsey for some reason? Seems like they were mighty sure of the future of the case investigation, didn't it? Is there any LE agency in the country more corrupt that Boulder's? Probably, but please don't tell me about it.

    [Hello. How can anyone who has followed the twists and turns of this case so long NOT be a conspiracy theorist? I'm ready for my meds. :hills:]

    So what happened to that package of Bloomies? Since the chain of custody would have been a huge issue after being in the Ramsey camp for so long, we have no idea if it was indeed the original package: you could buy packages just like it at Bloomingdale's for years after the murder, which is how forum member Jayelles got those she used in her demonstration.

    Still, as is pointed out...there had to be fingerprints on that clear plastic. How about DNA TESTING on the remaining six pairs? Oh, the possibilities! That old intruder might have left so much evidence there!

    Well, if he did, we'll never know. Because I pointedly asked Kolar about this very package on an early appearance on Tricia's show and...he had no idea what I was talking about. Never heard of it.

    Of course Kolar had no ability to look at every page or report of the 40K page case file: who would in one lifetime? If the package was processed, the reports are buried somewhere in that file.

    Unless they were destroyed...or never even produced.

    Here's the thing; I'M NOT MAKING ANY OF THIS UP!

    It's documented FACT...except for the FICTION, created by Team Ramsey.

    Anyhow...what were we talking about? :whoosh:
    __________________

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  11. #191
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Southern Silicon Valley !!
    Posts
    2,285

    Talking

    Bravo! KoldKase you nailed it again. I don't know how you can keep all that stuff straight in your noggin. As time goes by I have forgotten so many little points of this case. I don't think my mind even works like that to hold all this stuff in. Thank you for this excellent summary.
    "When are we going to get our heads out of the sand and understand that sometimes really nice people who look good on the outside are dastardly on the inside." Wendy Murphy, former prosecutor, MA



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
  •