Results 1 to 12 of 191
August 1, 2006, 10:15 am, Tue Aug 1 10:15:36 UTC 2006 #1
The Huge (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear on JonBenet, Modeled By Six-Year-Old
As promised, I purchased a packet of size 12/14 Bloomies from Bloomingdales in NY and here are some photos of them.
The first is for KoldKase. I think it was you who once asked about the packet they came in and how it was sealed.
This is the packet:-
Last edited by Cherokee; May 29, 2012, 12:24 am at Tue May 29 0:24:41 UTC 2012.
August 1, 2006, 10:24 am, Tue Aug 1 10:24:18 UTC 2006 #2
This is the seal. There is a little plastic "string" which goes through the loop at the end, the tags and the hole in the zipper. You need to break this to open it. In the photo, the seal is intact:-
August 1, 2006, 10:30 am, Tue Aug 1 10:30:26 UTC 2006 #3
And this is the size 12/14 and size 4/6 side by side. My daughter is almost exactly the same weight and height as Jonbenet was when she died (and she is almost exactly the same age too - 6 years and 6 months). I won't be getting her to model the larger knickers as I don't think it would be right to do so. The dimensions of the knickers are as follows:-
Size 12/14 - measure 12 inches from waistband to bottom of crotch and waistband is 22 inches unstretched.
Size 4/6 - measure 8.5 inches from waistband to crotch and waistband is just under 17 inches unstretched.
The size 4/6 fit my daughter just now.
My observation without her trying them on is that they would be very "gapey" at the crotch and would hang down at the crotch. The legs look very wide.
August 1, 2006, 3:06 pm, Tue Aug 1 15:06:43 UTC 2006 #4
Copied from WS:-
Well I just did a little experiment. I offered the larger size knickers to my daughter and she exclaimed "Mummy! These are too big! More like YOUR size". So there is no way she would mistake them for her own. Then I got her to try them on and they are simply huge on her. They wouldn't fall down round her ankles necessarily - not past her hip bones anyway, but they would certainly slip down as far as her hipbones - at which point the crotch is level with her knees. They are also incredibly baggy. Every heard the expression "droopy drawers"? They bag out at the back and form a little tunnel from one side to the next.
They would be extremely uncomfortable to wear and I quite frankly cannot imagine any child being happy to do so.
Another poster mentioned the possibility of them being worn over pullups and they would certainly accomodate rather large pullups with PLENTY of room to spare.
August 1, 2006, 3:35 pm, Tue Aug 1 15:35:54 UTC 2006 #5FFJ Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- New York, NY
Try one more experiment. Have her put them on, and then put on a pair of pants over them. I will wager that they will come off entirely with the pants, and that you would have to extract them from inside the pants in order to put them back on.
Edited to add: Now this was a useful thing to do. The picture of the size relationships alone is valuable grist for our discussion mill.
August 1, 2006, 3:42 pm, Tue Aug 1 15:42:24 UTC 2006 #6Originally Posted by Why_Nut
Put the oversized knickers on first
Put normal sized knickers on atop?
Then try to remove the normal sized ones to see if the large ones come off inside?
Or do you mean trousers? Remember pants = knickers to me and "panties" is a naughty word here so I struggle to use it in posts!
August 1, 2006, 3:46 pm, Tue Aug 1 15:46:45 UTC 2006 #7FFJ Senior Member
Originally Posted by Jayelles
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- New York, NY
August 1, 2006, 3:55 pm, Tue Aug 1 15:55:27 UTC 2006 #8Originally Posted by Why_Nut
I tried it with both jeans and velour trousers. The knickers didn't come right off - but they ended up down below her bottom.
I don't know what the result would be if she'd been wearing them for a while and they'd had time to "work down". I'll try that tomorrow because she's in bed now.
When I got her to try them on before, it was on top of her own knickers. This time I got her to wear them against her skin and it was truly awful. The legs openings are so wide that she isn't "covered" at all (if you get my drift). Her sheuch (good Scottish word for that gneral area) is pretty much totally exposd at the slightest movement.
I quite simply cannot believe that any child would be happy to wear these.
I wish I could demonstrate how baggy they are on a life-size dummy. Even before I tried them on my daughter, I didn't think by looking at them that they would be quite as baggy as they are.
ETA - it would be like having no knickers on at all and I would imagine the seam on the inside of the trousers would rub against her skin.
I wonder if the velvet trousers she was wearing were tested to see if they'd been against her skin in that area or if there were signs of her being "half-commando"?
August 1, 2006, 6:20 pm, Tue Aug 1 18:20:42 UTC 2006 #9FFJ Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
Fleet white taking JonBenét home
All this talk reminds me of the time when Steve Thomas interviewed Nedra Paugh in Atlanta, and he brought up the subject of toilet training with Nedra. I'm wondering just how old JonBenét was when she was at the Whites with Daphne (?).
I would never have sent a man home with his daughter's little playmate, and dirty underwear like that. Imagine the humiliation for JonBenét.
Page 137 Steve Thomas Hardback (Thanks to Little)
[quote]Nedra talked nonstop. But if you could stay with her long enough, reality might drop into the conversation. She revealed a bit more about JonBenet messing her pants and bed, a subject she had minimized in our previous interview. Now, however, she said that the child did not wipe properly after a bowel movement, and quite often an adult would have to wash her bottom and change her undies. They called it "dirtying." The grandmother also mentioned two occasions when the little girl had gone to play with her best friend, Daphne White, and had come home with Fleet White carrying her soiled underwear, saying that JonBenet had had an accident and was wearing a pair of Daphne's panties. That made me think of another
alternative to the foreign DNA found in her clothing.elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
Just my opinion.
August 1, 2006, 7:18 pm, Tue Aug 1 19:18:47 UTC 2006 #10Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Not Boulder, Colorado
Size didn't matter. The Wednesday tag is what mattered.
Last edited by Paradox; August 1, 2006, 8:12 pm at Tue Aug 1 20:12:39 UTC 2006.
August 2, 2006, 12:25 am, Wed Aug 2 0:25:12 UTC 2006 #11Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
Let me see if I remember correctly. Patsy claimed that JonBenet was sound asleep after returning from the Whites and the Fernies and Stines and being transported up to her bed.
Patsy claims that she removed JonBenet's black nelvet pants. Does she mention changing the panties, or adjusting them in any way? Any reference?
Patsy then CLAIMS that she replaced JonBenet's black pants with long johns. Did Patsy mention why she put a BEDWETTER in LONG JOHNS ... in long johns instead of pullups (or nothing at all)?
Why long johns? Have you ever tried to thread cooked, damp spaghetti pasta through a narrow straw? That's what it's like threading a sleeping child's legs into long johns. It's damn near IMPOSSIBLE!!! The child's limbs are TOTALLY limp. That NEVER HAPPENED!
So WHY the COMPULSION to thread spaghetti through a straw? No central heating? Nope. No COMFORTER? Nopey, nope. So there is NO COMPELLING REASON for a mother to go through that ORDEAL with a sleeping, bedwetting child.
Then why was JonBenet FOUND with long johns on?
JohnBenet would ONLY have long johns on IF she was AWAKE at some point AFTER returning home from the Whites. The most likely scenario is that she was awake and wanted to play with Chrismas toys. She did NOT need the warmth for bed ... but for playing downstairs, or eating pineapple it makes perfect sense. Being awake also 'splains why her bladder was almost empty prior to the murder.
Sooooo ... if JonBenet was wearing long johns, then Patsy HAD TO BE LYING!!!
JonBenet would ONLY have needed long johns if she was awake and was trapsing around the house. NO PARENT is gonna go through the threading ordeal unnecessarily. Patsy LIED.
... and as others have pointed out ... size 12 panties would have come off with the black pants when pulled off a sleeping six year old. And ... NO PARENT is gonna put those panties back ON under those conditions.
Patsy LIED! Why?
August 2, 2006, 7:33 am, Wed Aug 2 7:33:43 UTC 2006 #12Originally Posted by YumYum012
On Websleuths, there is a discussion about the Bloomies. One poster offered the suggestion that the Wednesday size 12/14 knickers were used as a substitute for her Wednesday 4/6 knickers. The poster hypothesised that perhaps the Wednesday knickers had been seen by others - perhaps at the White's party and this was why it was necessary for her to be wearing Wednesday Bloomies when her body was discovered. In that case - what happened to the smaller Wednesday Bloomies? Were they ever found?
Could the longjohns have been put on simply to keep the larger Bloomies on or to cover up the fact that they would have looked so huge and ... unlikely?
By Tricia in forum ***Sneek Preview*** - Tom Miller's BookReplies: 3Last Post: August 4, 2007, 9:15 pm, Sat Aug 4 21:15:02 UTC 2007
By AMES in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 119Last Post: June 19, 2007, 11:51 am, Tue Jun 19 11:51:40 UTC 2007
By RiverRat in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 30Last Post: September 2, 2006, 3:54 pm, Sat Sep 2 15:54:35 UTC 2006
By JustinCase in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 14Last Post: June 20, 2004, 1:25 pm, Sun Jun 20 13:25:02 UTC 2004
By Dunvegan in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public ForumReplies: 15Last Post: September 10, 2002, 7:34 pm, Tue Sep 10 19:34:10 UTC 2002