Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 191
  1. #73

    Default

    Now all we need is a pic of the BigBloomies over a pair of pull-ups.

    How do you thread longjohns on those tiny legs knowing that you daughter is wearing those HugeBloomies? That Patsy was one very, VERY sick woman.

    ...YumYum

  2. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default One more

    Just in case anyone IS thinking that I pulled the knickers down to make them look baggier, here is what they look like when I pull them up to waist level - see how much wider the waist is? And even at that level, see how they dangle down and bag out.

    You can see from this how quickly the knickers would slide down when the child moved.
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  3. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YumYum012
    Now all we need is a pic of the BigBloomies over a pair of pull-ups.

    How do you thread longjohns on those tiny legs knowing that you daughter is wearing those HugeBloomies? That Patsy was one very, VERY sick woman.

    ...YumYum
    Now there I cannot help you! No-one wears pullups in this family!
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayelles
    Remember that the smaller Bloomies were left on to show where the larger ones would slip down to. I did not in any way adjust the height of the smaller Bloomies to make it look more! The larger Bloomies don't fall off, they just slide down. However, it wouldn't take much of a tug to pull them off.
    Fantastic, creative and very illustrative work, Jayelles!
    No one can convince me that JB would have decided to wear panties that big to the Whites' party. No way.

    I'm a kindergarten teacher and we keep a supply of kids' underwear in a closet in case they have 'accidents'. And not once in the many years I have been working in my job has one of my kindergartners ever agreed to put on underwear which was too big for him/her. Not once. Often I use to grab some panties, hand it to them that they try them on, but whenever the panties happen to be dangling down, they do not want to wear them. The more assertive kids usually flat-out say so, and the shyer ones look down unhappily at those dangling pants, and after I ask them if these feel right, shake their heads, and we look for another, better fitting pair.

    Just speculating: could those oversized size 12 panties have been bought for JB to wear over her bulging pull-up diapers, and Patsy's allegation that they were meant as a present for her cousin Jenny was just another lie?
    Jmpo, but I find it strange that a multimillionaire's wife would have chosen for her niece's Christmas present something as 'mundane' as underwear (even if it was bought at Bloomingdale's) .
    Last edited by rashomon; August 7, 2006, 7:14 pm at Mon Aug 7 19:14:53 UTC 2006.

  5. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Bravo Jayelles! Does this ever put everything in the right perspective, Jay.

    Congratulations on a job well done! Just what would Tom Bennett think of this demonstration, Jay? Maybe you should send these to him, plus D.A. Mary Keenan, Alex Hunter and Lou Smit.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  6. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    ST OLAFF
    Posts
    1,957

    Default great job Jayelle ! ! ! !

    I never believed JonBenet put those on willingly..nope ! Kids are to sensitive on how undies "feel" and those big ones wouldn't have done it.

    and I don't think Patsy would have put them over a pullup either...who would do that?

    JonBenet didn't wear pullups during the day so why try and cover them at night with HUGE undies?

    In redressing they were probably the closest and maybe the others were dirty/in hamper.

  7. #79

    Default

    Wow. Jayelles and Why Nut. Too bad the BDA never hired YOU two!

    Gosh, Jayelles, I have to nominate you and Why Nut for Groupie Guttah Truth-Murdering Gossips of the year. It may have to be a joint title.

    I'm with Sparks. No way JonBenet put these on and kept them on.

    That means Patsy lied in Atlanta in 2000. Not only that, since she changed her story before our very eyes, that's strike two.

    Add in jams' story that the SIX PAIRS OF BLOOMIES 12/14 left ended up with the RST investigators and NOT LE for six years...I'd say Miss Patsy not only opened those Bloomies to put on the body, but she did so to stage "Wednesday" instead of some other panties.

    And would that make John the other half of "we" who decided to open them?

    Jayelles, I just cannot express how awesome you are to do this. I'd say this is the finest piece of investigating I've seen on this case...and that includes all of it done by LE.

    I truly think Tom Bennett needs to see this. Make him look at it before he deletes it to the trash bin and then pretends he's investigating this case.

    "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.

  8. #80
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Aw shucks KK. Do you know - I actually wonder if this could be one of the things that investigators have kept quiet about? i.e. that they KNOW there is no way JonBenet could have been wearing those unmentionables?

    Some day I might try making a better model. I've taken really detailed measurements of The Tootsie for reference. The stookey (stuki?/gesso) that I used to make this one dried really quickly on the surface and as I was trying to smooth it, it was just getting lumpy on my hands. It's obviously not the best medium for a slow-moving wannabe artist....

    AND - I made one almighty mess on the kitchen floor!

    BTW, I did forget to mention - the model is tightly stuffed with paper bags so that it filled out to the correct measurements. I put the tights and leotard on it to cover the messy workmanship :-)
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  9. #81

    Default

    Jayelles, I am going to say this once, Scottie, and you better get it: THIS IS A WORK OF INVESTIGATIVE ART!

    See, no way those panties wouldn't have bunched up in those VELVET JEANS! They would have come down with her pants when she used the toilet. She'd have been pulling and twisting to get them out of the folds of her bottom. If that was the true case, someone would have noticed and just taken the darn things off of her and put her pants back on without them! Or put some of Daphne's panties on her!

    Jayelles, LE did KNOW about this, hence the detailed questions about it in 2000. Think about it: they have only so much cooperation Wood and the Rams are going to give. What questions do you think they're going to focus on most? The most important ones.

    This one was MOST IMPORTANT. JonBenet was molested the night she was murdered. No question. By 1998, LE knew that she was also molested PRIOR to that night. No question. Yet here are these strange panties found on her body, and they're new, and the rest of the package they came from...LE does not have them. Forensics in the home 10 days, all the panties in the drawer taken in by LE, but NO SIZE 12/14 BLOOMIES. LE hadn't found the Bloomies size 12/14 in with JB's other undies. None of them.

    LE HAD to wonder, once someone noticed this huge piece of evidence...no pun intended...where DID these undies come from? Thomas said they did that investigation into the undies AFTER he left. He left after the '98 interviews, a year and a half into the investigation. That's a long time to miss something this important.

    So where do these missing undies show up six years later? If jams can be believed, THE RAMSEY INVESTIGATORS HAD THEM! All that time.

    Wood knew this. And he kept silent. Patsy kept silent. John kept silent. All through the 2000 Atlanta interviews, when Patsy was questioned in depth about them...not one of them said oh, WE have the Bloomies from that package! Would you like them?

    Unbelievable.

    "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.

  10. #82

    Default

    This is excellent, Jayelles, thanks.

    I've never dwelled on the "knickers" but now I see that they were part of the staging - the soiled undies were taken off JonBenet and frantically replaced with "Wednesday" bloomies, then covered up with the long johns. They looked like the undies she was wearing, like the string around her neck looked like a garrotte, the duct tape looked like a gag, and the insertion of the paintbrush looked like rape by a stranger. These things were all half-a**ed, thought up in the middle of the night in an emergency situation (the emergency being how to save one's a**).

  11. #83

    Default

    Ok, now look at this little gem from the interview with Haney/DA detective in '98-- (and thanks, jams):

    JonBenet: The Police Files; pp. 258-62

    TH: OK...are you aware that there had been prior vaginal intrusion on JonBenet?

    PR: No, I am not. Prior to the night she was killed?

    TH: Correct.

    PR: No, I am not.

    TH: Didn't know that?

    PR: No, I didn't.

    TH: Does that surprise you?

    PR: Extremely.

    TH: Does that shock you?

    PR: It shocks me.

    TH: Does it bother you?

    PR: Yes, it does.

    TH: Who, how could she have been violated like that?

    PR: I don't know. This is the absolute first time I ever heard that.

    TH: Take a minute, if you would, I mean this seems--you know, you didn't know that before right now, the 25th, at 2:32?

    PR: No, I absolutely did not...and I would like to see where it says that and who reported that.

    TH: Okay.

    PR: Do you have that?

    TH: Well, I don't have it with us, no. As you can imagine, there is a lot of material, and we surely didn't bring all the photos, but--

    PR: Well, can you find that?

    TH: Yeah. Because I think it's pretty significant?

    PR: I thing it's damn significant. You know, I'm shocked.

    ELLIS ARMISTEAD (Ramsey investigator): To be fair, Tom, that's a subject of debate in the newspaper...I don't want you to alarm my client too much here about whether or not it's absolutely a fact. I just think that should be mentioned to be fair to my client.

    TH: And based on the reliable medical information that we have at this point, that is a fact.

    PR: Now when you say violated, what are you -- what are you telling me here?

    TH: That there was some prior vaginal intrusion that something--something was inserted.

    PR: Prior to this night that she was assaulted?

    TH: That's the --

    PR: What report as -- I want to see, I want to see what you're talking about here. I am -- I am -- I don't -- I am shocked.

    TH: Well, that's one of the things that's been bothering us about the case.

    PR: No damn kidding.

    TH: What does that tell you?

    PR: It doesn't tell me anything. I mean, I knew --I -- I --

    TH: Okay, for a second --

    PR: Did you know about this?

    EA: I tried to stay out of the making of the record and inserting myself into the tape-recording of this interview. The newspapers have talked about this. Whether or not --

    PR: Well, they talk about a lot of things that are not true.

    EA: And there has been a debate among the people who talked about the findings in the autopsy report as to whether there was a prior vaginal intrusion or not. There has been a debate about that. Even in the newspapers.

    PR: Well, I do not know of anything and I am very distressed about this.

    TH: Who could have done such a thing?

    PR: I do not know. I don't have any idea.

    TH: What is your best guess?

    PR: I couldn't even being to guess. I am shocked. I don't have any idea . I am just -- I can't believe, I just can't believe this.

    TH: Would that knowledge change your answer to any question that you have been asked?

    PR: No, sir. I have answered every question you or anyone else has asked me to the best of my ability.

    TH: Would that answer or would that statement, that information, would that lead you in any particular direction? Would you think about a particular person being involved or doing something, with JonBenet?

    PR: I don't -- I don't know what I think. You know, I just want to see where it says that.

    TH: And prior to today, had you heard or read or seen anything about --

    PR: I had heard that the night she was killed that she may have had -- have been sexually assaulted. But not prior to that. Absolutely.

    TH: Have you ever suffered any physical abuse?

    PR: Absolutely not.

    TH: How about anybody in your family ever suffered any physical abuse?

    PR: Not to my knowledge.

    TH: Your sisters?

    PR: Not to my knowledge.

    TH: Sexual abuse, have they ever confided in you that --

    PR: No. No. What's this got to do with JonBenet?

    TH: What this has to do with first of all, is, whether or not you have ever really discussed things like this with people or somebody has confided in you.

    PR: No.

    TH: A friend. And I mentioned your sisters, you have two, correct? What was your relationship with them growing up?

    PR: Very close.
    She's just been told someone was molesting her daughter before the night she was molested and murdered...and her law team jumps in to dispute it, she has little to say, has to be prompted by Haney to even respond, and then what is her abiding thought: SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE OF THIS.

    For a year and a half, before the Ramseys would talk to LE AT ALL, their lawyers BARGAINED for evidence. Now that she's just been told someone was molesting her murdered child before that night...all she's thinking is SHOW ME EVIDENCE.

    Haney asks what are her thoughts on this, asking for her to THINK ABOUT IT, help LE with this because THIS WOULD LEAD STRAIGHT TO THE KILLER.

    Patsy says, oh, I have no idea, I'm just shocked...SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.

    I gotta' tell you, people, when I first started studying this case in depth, I truly did not know that much about child abuse and incest. I knew it existed, because I had a good friend who was a survivor of incest. But she didn't talk about it much. Very little. And I didn't ask much. Just listened the few times she brought it up. Through life, sure I'd read and heard about various cases of it. But until this case, it wasn't something I really knew all that much about.

    So I learned. I even joined a local Sexual Abuse Center as a volunteer. I learned and saw more than I ever imagined I would. Very sad stuff.

    But it has taken me a decade to be able to sit here and read about sexual abuse and not get very upset.

    Patsy is told FOR THE FIRST TIME...she says...that her child was being molested before the night she was murdered...and a year and a half has passed, but that's the blink of an eye when you have lost a loved one...and all Patsy has to say is...she's shocked...show me the evidence.

    Right.

    Patsy Ramsey knew exactly who was molesting JonBenet, IMO. She put those too large Bloomies on JonBenet that night and she lied about it for some reason besides being forgetful. Her child was being molested and was murdered and she's not even going to spend a half hour trying to help LE figure out WHO WAS MOLESTING JONBENET? Instead she's going to ARGUE she needs to see the evidence of this?

    Me, I'd be bouncing off the walls, I'd be making phone calls, I'd be checking calendars and dates and times and I'd be crying and shouting and beating something to a pulp! I'd be in the floor hysterical. And I'd be ALL OVER the ba$tard that did this to my child!

    Not Patsy. Show her the evidence.

    "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.

  12. #84
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    2,308

    Default

    Wow, awesome job!!

    While we mostly envisioned her drawers being too big it doesn't really hit you until you see this. No way would any 6 yr old girl put that on herself...but I imagine they din't look too big on a lifeless body laying on a floor.....



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
  •