The Significance Of The Big Bloomies...

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Ploppy_Slopper, Aug 24, 2006.

  1. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I can't wrap my head around this bloomies issue...

    Other than exposing PR as a liar, what significance do they have?

    Why would JB be wearing such huge panties? The only thing I can think of is that her clothes were completely covered in blood and someone changed them when wiping her down... Any thoughts on this?
     
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    This is my take - for what it is worth.

    The big Bloomies are a mystery for two reasons:-

    1) Because as we can see from the photo - they are really huge and quite frankly, unwearable. I don't believe a child would want to wear underpants this big. They'd be loose around the waist, could fall down, but more importantly, the leg holes are so massive, that the crotch dangles down almost to the knees and offers no protection whatsover. So it would appear to me that Jonbenet didn't put those on herself. My 6 year old wouldn't wear them for the reasons I described above. And apart from the discomfort factor - they look ridiculous! So I would say that the fact she was wearing them, sugegsts that someone put them on her - someone who didn't know what they were doing. The massive Bloomies point to an intruder to me.

    But here's the thing...

    2) Patsy Ramsey ADMITS to knowing about the big Bloomies - says JonBenet opened the packet and so they "took the decision" to just "use them". THAT makes no sense to me whatsoever. Here's a woman who has an immacualte appearance. Her children have the best of clothes - she pays HUNDREDS of pounds to have pageant costumes CUSTOM MADE for JonBenet. Does she sound like the kinds of person who would be happy for her little daughter to wear underpants which would make her look like an orphan of the storm?

    So what's the story? As I say - had Patsy seemed puzzled by the large Bloomies being on JonBenet, it would point straight to an intruder IMO - a male or a female with no little girls.
     
  3. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I should add that the RST (Ramsey Spin Team) argue that despite the fact that my daughter is currently the same weight and height as Jonbenet was when she died, she isn't necessarily the same proportions. That is true, but we know JonBenet didn't have a huge backside! If there were differences in size, they would be small - half an inch or an inch perhaps. My daughter is actually a pound heavier than Jonbenet was in which case, JonBenet might have been slightly leaner.

    The other RST argument is that the tabloids are the source of the underpants being size 12 and they argue that perhaps they were actually size 8-10. Well, I don't know about that. What I do know is that Patsy bought the Bloomies for her 12 year old niece. I also know that Patsy claimed in her interview that she would normally have purchased a size 8-10 for JonBenet (this is despite the fact that she acknowledges that Jonbenet's underpants were 4-6). Are the RST suggesting that Patsy would buy the SAME size of underpants for 6 year old JonBenet AND her 12 year old niece??

    Incidentally, Bloomies come in Small (4-6), Medium (8-10) and Large (12-14).

    I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly wouldn't buy a packet of age 8-10 knickers for my 12 year old niece. Ergo - I think we modelled the correct size of knickers.

    Apart from anything, no-one suggested the knickers WEREN'T size 12 until I did this experiment! Go figure!
     
  4. Thanks for the reply Jay.

    I know that my dad was unable to properly dress any of us kids when we were little... maybe JR was in charge of the staging and picked the wrong size... just a thought...
     
  5. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Well... I would say my husband was just as bad at dressing little kids. When he was in charge, the kids looked like waifs. Nothing matched, I swear he dug into my "bags for charity" to find the most ill-fitting and ill-matching outfit possible..... HOWEVER ... JonBenet wasn't a toddler. She was a little girl with a mind of her own and she knew what she liked to wear. we know this because she had a run in with Patsy that very day over what she would wear to the Whites' party - and JBR won. So I think if John Ramsey had laid out a massive pair of knickers for her to wear, she would have had her hands on her hips saying "DAD....."
     
  6. No, I meant after she was already dead.
     
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Don't forget that the RST HAD THE REMAINING BLOOMIES FROM THE PACKAGE UNTIL 2002 AND WITHHELD THEM FROM THE BPD INVESTIGATION.

    That's withholding evidence, people.
    They knew what they had, and they make excuses, but the truth is, by confiscating those Bloomies instead of letting LE take them, the chain of custody was lost, and they're useless for proving anything except that the Ramseys DID OBSTRUCT THE INVESTIGATION...YET AGAIN.

    You see, LE doesn't know where the RST then got the 12/14 Bloomies they eventually turned in to Lacy, do they? But LE did NOT have them, which is clear if you read the Atlanta 2000 interview with Patsy. LE forensics collectors spent 10 days processing the Ramsey's home. They took 15 pairs of undies, size 4/6, out of JB's undies drawer, they reveal in that 2000 interview. Patsy said SHE PUT THE SIZE 12/14 BLOOMIES IN THE DRAWER.

    So...where'd they go? Does anyone think LE took SOME of the undies out of the drawer, but not the rest?

    I don't. I think those Bloomies were somewhere else. Somewhere not in JB's bathroom or bedroom. Otherwise the forensics team would have taken them into evidence.

    So...these Bloomies are evidence. They have no reasonable explanation for being on JB. None. Nobody would put those on their child with correct-sized undies readily available in the drawer. Nobody would put them on the child without anyway. Plain pants would work better.

    But there is Patsy, who says that she put the package in JonBenet's bathroom and JonBenet opened them and up them on herself. Then Patsy, when pressed with the incongruity of that statement with the size of the undies, backs off of that statement and goes into passive voice, no longer giving anyone credit for putting the undies on JonBenet...just that they somehow got on her, and that was fine with Patsy.

    Remember Patsy said she took JonBenet's pants off while the child slept in bed that night. Anyone who has ever pulled pants off a sleeping child in bed KNOWS those undies would have come off with the pants. I believe that because I've pulled pants off a sleeping child with CORRECT-sized undies on and they came down. But Patsy says she did not NOTICE that JB had on panties that were hugely too large. Yet she then put on the long johns, as well. Never noticed the undies were so large.

    JonBenet went to the Whites in these, remember, if you believe Patsy. They claimed to be there maybe 4 hours. In that time, JonBenet must have gone to the bathroom. She had on VELVET pants. These large Bloomies would have bunched up in those velvet pants. They would have fallen down when she went to the toilet. Nedra said JonBenet asked others to wipe her. Did nobody notice in 4 hours, plus her own mother when undressing and redressing her asleep in bed, that JonBenet had on the undies you see in my avatar/Jayelle's model?

    I don't believe it. And I don't think LE believed it either. They drilled Patsy good in 2000 about these. There was a reason for that. The Ramseys, it turned out, had the remaining, missing Bloomies all those years, and didn't mention it ONCE in 2000 during the Atlanta interviews when LE asked in detail about those size 12/14 Bloomies. LE must not have known WHERE the rest of the 12/14 Bloomies were until 2002. The Ramseys had them.

    Remember, the DNA-manufacturer theory? You think having those Bloomies from the original package wouldn't have had potential as evidence there?

    Look, we went over all of this in the two threads stuck at the top of the forum thread page: "Big Bloomies" and "Bloomies modeled." The discussion is very detailed and includes the breakdown of Patsy's 2000 interview, the sources we have for various elements of this debate, etc. If you want it broken down for you more than this, perhaps you would understand more if you read there.

    Of course, make up your own mind. We've been over this case for a decade, and we're deep into the subtleties and nuances which I believe are critical to find the truth in any case where people are spending millions to keep it hidden.

    But I only have my opinion. And my opinion is these Bloomies tell an important part of the story: Patsy lied to LE about the 12/14 Bloomies being put on by JonBenet herself; Patsy lied to LE about putting them in her drawer; Patsy lied to LE about not noticing them on JonBenet when changing her pants that night; Patsy withheld evidence from LE when she didn't turn over the remaining undies from the package to LE for 5 years.

    Why would a mother of a murdered child do that?


    That's my opinion, and I may be wrong. What's yours?
     
  8. wombat

    wombat Member

    There's another point that you don't explicitly state - why did Patsy KEEP this package for Bloomies for 5 years? She no longer had a daughter that could wear them and the package had been opened and couldn't be given to anyone. That sounds like throw them out or give them to Goodwill to me. She knew they were evidence, for some reason.

    So, if she lied about where they were in the house, and who put them on the child, and whether she saw them on the child - then the retention of the Bloomies by the Rs is a smoking gun. She was keeping them in her possession to keep CONTROL of incriminating evidence.
     
  9. Whoa nelly! go easy on me KK!

    I realize that the bloomies mean something, I just don't know what, thats why i posted this thread!

    We've all seen the stickies on this topic, but they've mostly been about the fact the Patsy lied and that the panties were much to large to be worn around for hours... ok, I understand that.

    My question isn't whether or not the bloomies are significant (i know they are), but rather, WHAT exactly was significant about them? Why would anyone put such huge bloomies on a small child? Thats what I'm asking here.

    The fact that the Rams kept the package is a separate issue, also significant, but separate. It doesn't answer my question.

    On a side note, Pete Boyles said that Dr.Lee had tested an unopened package of Bloomies and found factory DNA on them, which as of yet, I have been unable to verify.
     
  10. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    Sloppy ...

    1. JonBenet ... NO 6 year old child would willingly chose to wear the HUGE Bloomies. That means that she was NOT wearing those bloomies to the White's ... and hence, was NOT wearing them when Patsy put her to bed.

    [​IMG]

    2. Patsy claimed to have removed JonBenet's black pants that she wore to the Whites', and replaced them with longjohns. Those HUGE bloomies would have come OFF when the pants were removed ... and NO MOTHER would have failed to have noticed those HUGE bloomies AND left them on her daughter while struggling to pull on the longjohns.

    3. Who put those HUGE bloomies on JonBenet AFTER she got home from the Whites'? The Ramseys say that the intruder put them on JonBenet ... redressed her after death. What possible reason would an intruder have to do such a thing? NONE! And how would an intruder know where to look for clean bloomies to redress JonBenet in?

    Only the Ramseys knew where to find clean bloomies.

    Only the Ramseys had a REASON (staging) to redress the dead body in their basement.

    Only the Ramseys ... in a blind panic to cover their own tracks ... could overlook the size of the replacement bloomies (matching the "Wednesday" designation was FAR more important than getting the size correct).

    Since NO parent could FAIL to notice the HUGE size of such bloomies when redressing their child for bedtime, any failure to tell authorities about that fact is a CLEAR attempt to cover-up a key piece of evidence relative to the case.


    There is no doubt more, but I'm in a hurry at the moment ... and some details are probably missing here, or unclear. I, or others can elaborate later.


    ...YumYum
     
  11. MlazyV

    MlazyV Banned for Stupidity

    I think the underwear was big because JonBenet was at some point wearing a diaper underneath. Looks like one would fit.
     
  12. Thanks YumYum! Thats exactly what i was getting at... just one more question: does anyone think that the bloomies could've had some connection to the bed-wetting incident?

    And please, call me Ploppy. :winkaway:
     
  13. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    [​IMG]

    Mlazy ... as discussed in other Bloomies threads, the HUGE bloomies are even too HUGE to be worn over pullups.

    More importantly ... there is NO EVIDENCE that JonBenet was wearing pullups when Patsy changed her into the longjohns ... so the pullups issue MUST be put to rest. Let me empasize this point ... there is NO EVIDENCE that JonBenet was wearing pullups when Patsy changed her into the longjohns . That ENDS the argument over whether the HUGE Bloomies were worn THAT NIGHT over pullups.


    ...YumYum
     
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Good point, wombat. And I think we can assume, with Patsy admitting in 2000 that she knew about the too-large Bloomies "from the press," that it was no accident the Bloomies took 5 years to get to the BDA...and never to the BPD.

    You know, I have a theory about this: jams stated that "someone" in the Ramsey camp found the 12/14 Bloomies in Atlanta while looking through boxed up stuff from the Boulder Ramsey home. Who found them? If it wasn't Patsy or John, maybe it was one of the sisters or friends or investigators, and they knew the significance of the Bloomies. One version of several stories about this I read said one of the investigators was looking through stuff from the Ramsey home at some point for something...can't remember the details this minute...so maybe it was an investigator who found them and realized these were the infamous Bloomies with the potential explanation for the foreign DNA on them.

    On the other hand, I believe jams floated another part of the story as well, earlier, that it WAS a Ramsey investigator who found these after the house was turned back over to the Ramseys. Maybe I just assumed they were found in the Boulder home from the wording jams used, when in fact they were found in Atlanta in the packed up goods by an investigator.

    I guess my point is, once found, to then attempt to get rid of them would be destroying evidence, and you're right, wombat, that means whoever found them knew they were evidence.

    So if the Ramseys had hidden them from LE that night, or wanted to get rid of this damning evidence, why not just throw them out themselves?

    If someone else found them, an investigator or someone from the inner circle, how could the Bloomies then be gotten rid of, without that looking suspicious to the very people who believed so in the Ramseys? So the 12/14 Bloomies were a dilemma.

    If they were innocent, they would have turned them over immediately, assuming LE just "missed" them, IMO.

    But if they were deliberately concealed from LE and ended up being discovered accidently by an investigator or family member or friend, then turning them over to LE would lead to two things: testing for matching foreign DNA; and questions about where these items were found by that person and how LE missed finding them?

    Questions about the Bloomies: Patsy, even after 3 years, could not give a reasonable explanation as to how those 12/14 Bloomies got on JonBenet and why Patsy didn't notice. She fumbled and she changed her story and she lied, because there was no reasonable explanation...that she wanted to tell the truth about, at any rate.

    Patsy didn't want those questions asked, IMO. Considering how badly Patsy fumbled in 2000, when LE did have questions about the Bloomies in spite of the RST still secretly withholding them, I think we know why they dodged LE and withheld such evidence. At least, I do.
     
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Patsy herself did not say that JonBenet had pullups on the night she was murdered. She certainly didn't wear them to the White's house.

    The maid also stated that Patsy had taken JonBenet out of the diapers at night. Patsy also said she only had the pullups in the cabinet for special circumstances, and that she had taken several pairs out that afternoon to pack for the Disney cruise only, for nighttime accidents.

    So there is no evidence the Bloomies were bought for that purpose, as Patsy stated they were bought for the 12 year old cousin for Christmas, and no evidence that JonBenet had pullups on any time that night.

    Unless you think Patsy is lying about that. Some people do.
     
  16. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    ... there is always the outside chance that JonBenet WAS put to bed with pullups on, and that that is a key piece of evidence withheld from the public. But as KK points out, Patsy had addressed that issue in her interviews with LE.


    ...YumYUm
     
  17. MlazyV

    MlazyV Banned for Stupidity

    That makes it cut and dry in your opinion only, not mine. I've never seen any proof the panties used in the 'experiments' were the same as those JonBenet was found wearing. Bloomingdales is in the fashion business and designs are rarely stagnant, even for undergarments, they change minimally yearly, and most often seasonally. Look at the Hanes site

    http://www.hanes.com/HanesCommerce/...ls underwear&gclid=CKq28rjc-IYCFThmJAod60ZkYg

    and you'll find many styles for girls with varying amounts of leg room. The experiments seem to have been done in a high legged variety versus the more common brief with a full leg. Not to menyion the diapers themselves have changed over the years and made of different fibers and different designs and different thicknesses. For any experiment to be relevant, everything has to be exact.

    JonBenet may even have been wearing diapers during the day. Wetting the bed was the least of her troubles.

     
  18. YumYum012

    YumYum012 Member

    MlazyV ... You make a valid point about changing fashion. But try this experiment yourself. Go to ANY local store in your area that deals in children's cloths. Grab a pair of childs size 6, and a 12-14 panties of the same style ... any style ... and compare them for yourself. It's the HUGE difference in size that is at issue here ... not the style.

    I'm serious ... educate YOURSELF if you don't believe Jayelle's demonstration. DO IT!

    [​IMG]

    And since Patsy gave NO indication that JonBenet was wearing pullups when she put her to bed, then your can bet that she wasn't wearing them at that time. And IF she were ... where are the discarded pullups now? Have you seen them on the evidence list?

    It's very simple for you to verify the size differential for yourself, Mlazy ... do us all a favor, and DO IT! I'll be anxious to hear about your findings. When do you think you can get back to us with YOUR findings? Got a Target ... or Kmart ... or Kohl's ... or whatever nearby? Just jump in your car and check it out! Nothing to buy ... and then you'll be INFORMED. It'll take just a few minutes.

    Soooo ... you'll get back to us latter today? Tomorrow?


    ...YumYum
     
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    There is no "high legged variety" - these are childrens full briefs. Clearly you are shocked at size of the legholes as you are trying to attribute this to some design variation, but I can absolutely assure you that I bought the same style of knickers in both sizes.

    The reason the legholes gape and the crotch hangs down is attributable to nothing more than the fact that the knickers are HUGE and designed for a girl twice Jonbenet's weight.

    ETA:-
    Please refer to this thread which has more photos. You can see the Bloomies packet, the nylon tag which must be cut before the packet can be opened - and the size 4-6 and 12-14 side by side. You can see there is no different style.

    I'm actually take exception to your suggestion that this experiment was falsified by me using a high-legged "variety" to make it look as though they were larger.
     
  20. VP

    VP Member

    My take....

    For whatever reason, the Ramseys have always wanted everyone to believe that JonBenet died on Wednesday, the 25th. They even had December 25th put on her tombstone. I think that while staging the crime scene, a light bulb went off in Patsy's head - the days of the week underwear! I'll put Wednesday's on JonBenet and LE will conclude that she had to have died on Wednesday because she is wearing them! - The fact that they were too big for JonBenet was irrelevant to PR, just as was the fact that the "killing machine" garrote being too long to be used as an auto-erotic tool was irrelevant to her.

    So why did they take the underwear and keep them from authorities? I think it's because PR felt LE would see that Wednesday was the ONLY pair of underwear used from the package and would put together the reason for PR putting them on her on the 26th. Just my armchair opinion :cafe:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice