The Huge (Girls Size 12-14) "Bloomies" Underwear on JonBenet, Modeled By Six-Year-Old

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Jayelles, Aug 1, 2006.

  1. tylin

    tylin Banned

    (I love reading your post.)
    I swear, I had chills when I read the part of the interview you highlighted. It was suddenly as plain as the nose on my face--Kane let Patsy know right then and there that the other size 12/14 panties were not found in the house. You said:
    Absolutely on both counts. :clap:
  2. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    "The panties were only a part of the staging. There were so many ticky tacky little things that the Ram's did in the process of preparing for the cover up. They were multitasking on a grand scale. It was a rush-rush- play-it-by-ear-thingy."

    With the pit-bulls from the law office making up the difference.

    "All they did, from somewhere around midnight to five in the morning, was nothing short of incredible. The note alone was very time consuming. However did they do it? Well, the more I think about it the more I believe that Patsy could possibly have been on something like speed. Has anyone else thought of that?"

    Yep. It's been thought she was taking diet pills, which are heavy on stimulants.

    "When I look at pictures of JonBenet, wearing lipstick so young, I can't imagine what Patsy was thinking doing this to a small child. It's just SICK: hair dyed BLOND AT SIX, hair extentions and teasing, manicures, literally scores of professional photos, dance lessons, singing lessons, costume fittings, performance after performance, rehearsals--the child was SIX YEARS OLD! I cannot imagine how much pressure she lived under."

    There's a reason why hair bleach bottles don't have a warning on them: because the makers don't think anyone will be F'ed up enough to use it on a kid!

    "Yeah, Why Nut, they aren't going to ever talk about evidence which they don't like at the swamp. Why waste time denyingdenyingdenying reality when it's just as easy to ignore it to begin with?"

    They had a good teacher in John Douglas! "Oh, no, don't believe the CASKU guys when they say the crime scene was staged. Believe me, even though they saw the evidence and I didn't and all of my writings say it was!" Moron.

    The RST likes to spin this one into the realm of conspiracy theory: "Oh, the cops conspired to show only RDI evidence to the Feds." Sure. Just how did they think they'd get away with that? Especially since Smitty was RIGHT THERE! And said nothing! The great thing about conspiracy theories like that is that they are unprovable one way or the other, so you'll never convince anyone who believes!
  3. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    I always find that interesting, the theory that BPD investigators conspired to hide all evidence but that which suited only a Ramsey-did-it theory from the FBI and other larger authorities. Like Fed investigators were gullible little children who only believed what they were told? Not likely. Rather, the Federal investigators, being skilled in truly national crime processes, knew what they should see if the case was being conducted as thoroughly as it ought to have been. It is ironic that Margoo is highlighting the findings of a particular study of child abduction murders right now, since part of the advice it offers is exactly what the FBI was in a position to demand from the BPD; show us evidence that is not only unusual about the case, but also the evidence that we would expect to see usually. You cannot hide evidence from investigators who are, due to their vast experience, in a position to know what is being withheld from them.
  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Boy, talk about demoralizing. I have been looking for old files for several projects going on right now, and I just found a truly long thread from my old Purgatory forum days, in January of 2004.

    I need a brain transplant. I do not remember any of this. I remember the information...or some of it...obviously, in this thread, I didn't remember discussing in great detail the big issue of the MISSING SIZE 12/14 PANTIES. It's like I had forgotten it all and now I've found it again, a case resurrection! sigh I've been around this case waaaaaaaaay too long....

    But there are some good things in this thread. Jayelles, you're on it, Jahazafat is the first to bring up that all the panties in the drawer were taken by LE and none were size 12. I seem to have had the size of the panties all mixed up, as 10/12. RTE is in here, and she really is so smart, she's light years ahead of me. It's a good discussion, but long. There are some ideas in here we've done before, no doubt, many times, but it brings in jams' claim that Wood handed the package of 12/14 panties over to Keenan when she took over the investigation, after the Ramsey investigators "found" them in the house.

    Now I don't believe that for a second, and the point is made LE would have made lots of pictures of the bathroom, as well as gone through the drawers systematically. But Wood brings this up in the Thomas deposition, and alas, seems the medical examiner never took a picture of the body with just the underwear. That's bad news. Also, seems LE never investigated the missing panties until Thomas left, which was over a year and a half post murder. That's just not acceptable.

    Well, in the interest of seeing for yourself, I'm going to post this very long thread here and hope none of the other posters nor Keebu object. Read it or not, your call.

    Oh, but in one post of mine, I found links I still have on my old computer to pictures and things I have to hunt for over and over through the years. I hope Why Nut and Jayelles will capture these if they don't have them already.
  5. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    From the good days of Purgatory: January 2004

  6. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, FIRST Patsy said JonBenet opened the package.

    THE Patsy starts stuttering and goes into PASSIVE VOICE...meaning she goes from naming the action in a straightforward voice--JONBENET OPENED THE a passive, uncommittted description--THE PACKAGE WAS OPENED.

    That's a classic speech pattern used to distance herself from the opening of the package. She's TWICE put the action on someone else: first JonBenet, then "someone" opened it, because IT WAS OPENED...but not "I opened the package."

    She changed her story. Why? She's already said JonBenet opened the package. But she's got a problem with repeating that. I think it's because she's lying--about something here, anyway. She knows she's in trouble and she's stumbling. Wood picked up on it. If Patsy opened the package, she would remember that she had to cut that nylon loop with the store tags, wouldn't she, something a child would need help doing. Maybe she was afraid LE will figure that out. Or maybe she's having trouble focusing on her story, keeping it straight, because she's remembering exactly what happened in detail, and then she's trying to revise that without giving herself away to LE: JonBenet opened the package. Oops. No, the package WAS opened...and she/Patsy put the panties in the drawer. Yeah, that's the ticket.

    Now the question was THIS:

    Whatever was going on in her head, she changed her story. She tried to distance herself from the action of opening the package. So IMO, she's lying. Patsy opened the package herself, or whoever did, there's something involving the panties and the package that relates to the events of the night that ended with JonBenet's death.

    Let me check the sequence to see what the direct question was asked of Patsy before she changed her story.
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    You know, I'm sorry to be such a dog with a bone about this topic--so just scroll if you're bored with it. Jayelles re-opened a can of worms here for me. Obviously, from the Purgatory posts, this isn't new, and it wasn't new then, either, as these interviews were done in August of 2000, though I'm not sure when jams put up the transcripts. The NE book didn't come out until later, though. I'm going to have to re-read the questioning on this subject with Patsy in that, aren't I? sigh Well, for now....

    I don't believe it sunk in with me until this thread, though, that the Ramsey investigators ended up with the remaining too large panties, still IN THE PACKAGE, according to jams, and gave them to Wood, who gave them to Keenan. This is IMMENSELY incriminating. Even though LE neglected to focus on this evidence in good time, IMO, when they did, after Thomas had left, he stated under oath, they did have crime scene pictures of JonBenet's room and I'd think it's a safe bet, her bathroom, because I remember Patsy being asked about the toilet there in the '98 interviews. So I'm sure LE had those to look for that package of panties. They were NOT there.


    And they ended up being FOUND by Ramsey investigators? Who KEPT THEM FOR 6 YEARS? OH NO THEY DIT-UNH!!

    That's it. The Ramsey investigators KEPT THE OVERSIZE BLOOMIES FOR SIX YEARS BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WOULD BE INCRIMINATING TO GIVE THEM TO LE AND SAY EXACTLY WHERE THEY FOUND THEM! Jams tried to "explain" it by saying SHE felt that LE wouldn't handle them properly, so they kept them until Keenan got the case.

    HA! BUSTED! I'm growing quite fond of jams, I really am. Like Patsy, when jams starts making excuses...we should PAY ATTENTION!

    But I digress....

    Here's the first part of this questioning in Atlanta, 2000, and this time, I'm going to include the lead-in questions, complete with Wood doing his best to obfuscate the issue and cue Patsy that she needs to be very careful since she's given answers to some extent about this topic in the DA 1998 interview:

    [You really have to laugh at Wood here, he's so obvious. But it's notable how much COOPERATION we see here: the BDA had to struggle to get simple answers, and Wood wasted as much time as he could in that regard, though his intentions were not meant to help LE find any intruder, that's clear. Now you can see why Kane got so upset and threatened to leave himself eventually.]

  8. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, now I'm going to continue with Wood's interference edited out, so we can get the focused sequence of questions asked of Patsy, and her answers...and see when she started changing her story.

    Here is the FIRST VERSION of how the overlarge undies got on JonBenet:

    So we have the straight question, and Patsy's FIRST straight answer: LE needs an explanation how those too large panties got on JonBenet, and Patsy gives it to them. No frills. Patsy put the package in JonBenet's bathroom, JonBenet opened them AND PUT THEM ON HERSELF. Bam. Next?

    But you have to hand it to the lawyers, they knew what they were doing...the questions become trickier...and NOW Patsy changes her story...and LIES about the proportion of the 12/14 panties:

    So the question before Patsy changed her story was: if she knew JonBenet had on these very large panties for a child her size, would Patsy have told JonBenet NOT to wear these panties which were too large if she'd known she had them on? Since the Boulder team established that the panties were quite a bit too large, Patsy feels pressured to explain why she didn't notice or supervise JonBenet on what was obviously an issue that needed adult guidance. Since Patsy has already stated she was the one who put the panties in JonBenet's bathroom, she's implied she gave her permission to wear them. Now she realizes that LE knows her story needs clarifying because the panties were entirely too large, as Jayelles has demonstrated.

    So Patsy changed her story into the passive voice, trying to wiggle out of her original I'M SURE I DID THIS AND JONBENET DID THIS statement. Then she LIES about how the panties weren't THAT much too big.

    And then Det. Harmer, god bless her, jumps right on the question that needs to be asked...and Patsy dodges it:

    So Patsy goes from she bought the panties for Jenny, Patsy's SURE she put them in the bathroom, JonBenet opened them and put them on "WE" decided to use them, the package WAS OPENED, I never saw them on her, "I can't say for sure," "I THINK I bought them for Jenny," "I put them in THE DRAWER," "they were free game."
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2006
  9. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I know I need to just let this entire case go, but it really bugs me to this day how cavalierly the Ramseys lied to LE. I can reach no other conclusion but that they knew what happened to JonBenet, who did what to whom, and the evidence Patsy wrote the note is solid.

    I mean, come on! PATSY STATES CLEARLY NUMEROUS TIMES SHE PUT THE PANTIES IN THE DRAWER. But there is jams, years later, stating the panties were found in the package SOMEWHERE ELSE, NOT IN THE DRAWER.

    Now, we know jams only knows what those limpheads Ollie and Smit tell her, but how is it that these two WORLD-CLASS DETECTIVES are telling jams that Patsy LIED to LE?

    Oh, we can sure explain that away, can't we? It had been sooooo long, she just was confused, blahblahblah.

    But what is NOT confused is that LE is sitting there telling Patsy Ramsey THE PANTIES ON JONBENET CAME FROM A PACKAGE WHICH PATSY CLEARLY REMEMBERS BUYING IN NEW YORK, and lo and behold, a pair of those panties are found on JonBenet's murdered body, AND YET, THERE ARE NONE OF THE REMAINING PANTIES FROM THAT PACKAGE FOUND IN THE HOME BY LE. Not in the panty drawer, not in any drawer, not on the counter, not in plain sight, not in with the other panties where Patsy stated numerous times SHE PUT THEM, not in the laundry, not in the dryer, not on the floor. NOWHERE IN THE HOME.


    And the kicker is that jams states that the Ram investigators FOUND the panties STILL IN THE PACKAGE, IN THE HOME, after LE's forensics teams spent 10 days there and never photographed them, never took them into evidence. Of course, in jams duplicitous and always carefully edited versions of her insider info stories, she never says WHERE this package of panties was found. Never says WHEN they were found. Never says WHO found them, by name. NO "LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY" IN THIS SERIOUS DIVERSIONARY SPIN, IS THERE?

    OK, fine. If the RST wants to spin that as LE's fault, old incompetent CBI forensics and BPD, fine. But how does that explain THIS: THE RAMS' INVESTIGATORS FIND THE PACKAGE OF PANTIES IN THE HOME...SOMEWHERE, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE...AND THEY TAKE CUSTODY OF THEM...AND THEY DON'T GIVE THEM TO LE FOR SIX YEARS?

    Now, consider that the RST KNOWS how important these panties are ALL ALONG. This interview took place in 2000. Patsy was asked about the panties in 1998, as well. Schiller wrote about them. Thomas wrote about them. Patsy herself STATES she's READ SOMEWHERE about the fact that they were too big. She has obviously THOUGHT about this. Her lawyers have THOUGHT about this. She has obviously been DRILLED on this, as her FIRST clear and concise answer demonstrates. Yet even in 2000, with Kane and Beckner and other DA and BPD LE making it CLEAR that this is a BIG ISSUE...EVEN THEN, neither Wood nor Patsy nor the Ramsey investigators say WORD ONE about the very PANTIES IN QUESTION BEING IN THEIR POSSESSION!

    They also KNOW there is an issue with the DNA. They KNOW the BPD has said publicly that it may come from the manufacturer, which having the other panties tested could help prove or disprove. Do the Ramseys want IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE cleared up so LE can move on to other important evidence to track down that intruder? OR NOT?

    I say NOT! How could they KEEP SILENT about such evidence IN THEIR POSSESSION for 6 years? THIS is that infamous "cooperation"? HA! BS!

    Jams tried to spin that they didn't trust LE to process it. That's BS. Who is going to process it? The Border Patrol? Then GIVE IT TO THEM!

    But no. The Ramseys and their investigators and lawyers CONSPIRED FOR SIX YEARS TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE IN A CHILD MURDER CASE!


    I'm sorry for all the screaming. Most times I'm using caps to emphasize points, like bullet points, because my posts are so long, but now, I'M SHOUTING!


    How that ends up with Keenan and Judge Carnes and Smit and every damn sorry excuse for a person sworn to seek justice for victims in this country weeping and fawning over the Ramseys is truly diabolical!

    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 2, 2012
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    I made the model on Friday but it collapsed slightly when I had to move it. I tried my best to straighten it out but I don't know if it's worked yet. I hung it up in the utility room over the weekend whilst we were away sailing. We're not long back and I'm totally shattered and heading for bed!

    I also intend to make detailed measurements of Tootsie for the record because she's growing so quickly just now and I'm aware this isn't an experiment I'll get a chance to repeat.

    The modelling material is quite thick so it might end up being too big so I need to measure that too. If it's too big, I'll go back to the drawing board. I have a plan B and that will be aided by an artist friend.

    Interesting that there is no mention of this over yonder. I made a post about it at CTV where the discussion was diverted and utilmately trashed by the RST.
  11. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    The RST will ALWAYS make sure any discussion about the too large panties is diverted and squashed. They take their cue from Patsy on that. Because any discussion of it leads to Patsy caught lying and obfuscating a piece of evidence that is truly important in identifying the killer of JonBenet.

    It is also tied into the molestation.

    Jayelles, I don't suppose you know any department store or children's shop owners or employees...? Seems to me if you could get a few minutes to try those Bloomies on a child's mannequin of the right size, snap a few pics, that might work.

    I'm sorry your efforts have been thwarted thus far. You are amazing to try so hard. I'm glad you had your sailing for respite.
  12. tylin

    tylin Banned

    The below is brilliant. 2 years ago you summed this up perfectly and it deserves to be posted again! :bow: :yay:

  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, I don't know about brilliant, because there are so many ifs in our theories, and they're all built on so much others have posted through the years. Even when I think I have an original thought, like this one, I stumble upon a long forgotten thread where it was someone else altogether that led us down that path. hahaha When I say at this point I've forgotten more than I remember about this case, I'm not exaggerating.

    But that pink top on JB's bed is addressed in the '98 interview with Patsy--I think, it was that one. She says JonBenet kept her pjs under her pillow. But there is only ONE PIECE of those pjs on the bed. This picture of this bed is all wrong, if you look at it.

    OK, it's Christmas, pjs don't get put under the pillow neatly, I can accept that. But the Ramseys say Patsy and John took JB upstairs, put her to bed still asleep, she never stirred. Patsy is looking for bottoms to put on JB. Patsy said she couldn't find JB's usual bottoms, so she just took the long john bottoms out of the drawer. Where were the matching pink bottoms? There's the top. On the bed. There's the the foot of the bed.

    And about those day of the week panties. We see Patsy in the 2000 interview claiming she didn't remember if she bought JB a package of those Bloomies in her own size. But then Patsy said the Bloomies were special...and IF JB was known to wear those day of the week panties, as LHP said at some point and I can't remember where, but maybe in PMPT or Thomas' book, why WOULDN'T Patsy have bought her some? Of course, it's possible she just neglected to do so, shopping frenzy, that kind of thing, but if she didn't, and then JB wanted to keep the ones too large because she wanted some, too...why wouldn't Patsy remember this? Obviously, Patsy DOES remember a lot, but she doesn't remember WHY she decided to give JB panties way too large bought for her cousin? I'm NOT buying this.

    Now, think about that bed: it's a mess. You put your child to sleep, ok, the bed wasn't made during a busy day in a holiday season. No big deal. But if you're putting your child into it asleep, wouldn't you take DISCARDED CLOTHES off of it BEFORE you dressed her and pulled up the sheets and covers to tuck her in?

    And I am telling you, I do not believe that Patsy BS about saying a prayer over JB while she slept in the bed: Now I lay me down to sleep.... I think that's just more of Patsy's bid for sympathy, cheap drama. If I HAD said that prayer over my daughter mere hours before her body was found murdered, I'd never have been able to utter those words again! But there's Patsy, doing a replay for the world on TV. Prime Time, baby!

    John identifies the colored sweater on JB's bed as Patsy's, as well. Why is Patsy's sweater on JB's bed that morning? Again, when would Patsy have removed her own sweater in JB's room and left it on her bed? And why would it STILL be there, after Patsy says she undressed JB and redressed her in long johns and tucked her in? Why wouldn't Patsy pick up her own sweater off the bed and lay it on the other bed, at least, if she couldn't be bothered to take it up to her own room or put it in the laundry?

    The usual RST spin seems to be that Patsy was a housekeeping slob. Yeah, well, that's certainly a good excuse when it seems some of the critical clothing from the day and night before her child was murdered went missing somehow. Or did the intruder just pack a SUITCASE before he climbed back out the basement window? Oh, and he MEANT to have JB inside it, but he didn't have room, what with the wardrobe he wanted for a souvenir.

    Then there is the other bed, with a large piece of dark clothing on it. I can't remember if that was identified by the Ramseys in '98, but I think it might have been. Maybe someone else can remember. I can look it up, but not tonight. I have other fish to fry.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2006
  14. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I went back and reread...and either I'm dense, or I just can't grasp some of this in large doses because we're only seeing questions asked and answered with no supporting evidence that makes it clear immediately, like exactly what clothes of JB's are missing and which ones are not.

    But now I'm focusing on something Patsy said that could mean two things, which I didn't catch the probably meaning, now that I look at it.

    First, Patsy stated it was JONBENET'S IDEA to buy the Bloomies undies. Then Patsy stated she didn't remember if she'd bought one or two packagees...which I took to mean, one package for Jenny and a second package for JonBenet, but now I think, looking at the question before that answer, she meant she didn't know if she bought one or two packages for JONBENET. Hard to be sure, but that makes more sense, as surely she'd have bought at least ONE package for JonBenet if JonBenet was the one who wanted to buy them in the first place. makes sense to me Patsy meant she DID buy JB her own package, but might have bought two for her.

    So, I guess LE must have found some of those panties in JB's size. But all those in the drawer were size 4/6. Patsy stated they were too small for JB, but says she doesn't remember what size she did buy. If she bought 8/10, which would be the next size up, LE would have found those, it seems. Maybe they did but found the smaller ones and are stating the smaller size from memory. Or something like that. Gosh, I really wish we had this information. It's such a waste of time speculating over ever-changing stories about evidence, it's exhausting.

    So Patsy was all over the place. But I think she's trying to say she didn't JUST buy the package for JonBenet, but for Jenny, as well. That turns it around, doesn't it? She's not saying she didn't buy the package for JonBenet. She's saying she DID, MAYBE TWO. But one for Jenny as well, and that's the too large size that was found on JB on the 26th.

    So, I'm thinking it's confirmed by this interview that JonBenet did have her own size in the Bloomies, at least one package and maybe two.

    Now, one other thing I want to ask about this, and then I'll stop with this topic, I promise:

    Does anyone here do the family laundry? Patsy said she's done lots of laundry. I do lots of laundry. Have since I was a kid. Long before people of my class had dryers. We did have a regular washing machine, though, and a clothesline. Hung clothes out and brought them in, winter and summer. I actually miss my old clothesline, against the 'hood ordinance to have one these days. Nothing like the smell of sunshine sheets on the bed. But I digress....

    I wondering if anyone here who took/takes care of a family and sorts dirty clothes, then washes and drys and folds and puts away the clothes, possibly really doesn't notice what underwear they've folded and put away for their family?

    See, that's my job. I not only notice those things, I have a practical reason to notice: don't want to bleach clothes that would be ruined. Want to bleach clothes that need to be sanitized and whitened. Want to make sure they're clean when finished. Want to make sure they're not torn or the elastic isn't coming off and they need replacing. Want to make sure nobody is sick or having dietary problems, especially children.

    See, I even notice if they're getting too small. I routinely buy clothes for the family, shoes, underwear, because they get worn, torn, stained, outgrown, etc.

    Since we know JonBenet had some kind of recurring infections in her genital area for which she was taken to the doctor several times, and since we know her hymen was basically no longer intact or even present for the most part, as well as she had chronic inflammation of the vaginal tissue at the TOD and so was continuing to have problems of SOME KIND in that there any reasonable way to assume that Patsy did NOT notice those problems showing up in JB's underwear? Of course there would have been some blood. She complained of itching, which Patsy surely would have noticed. Patsy took her to be diagnosed and treated, didn't she?

    Hey...something else just hit me. In this interview, LE asked Patsy about the dates when she was in New York that fall. They mention two trips, one in November, and one in December, when JonBenet was in the parade and presumably the Ramseys were not home.

    This is jogging my memory. Didn't Patsy make three phone calls in one day to Dr. Beuf's early December? No one seems to know what those calls were about.

    Now I'm wondering...if John and Patsy were out of town...and that was RIGHT BEFORE Patsy's calls to Dr. Beuf...maybe there's a connection there. Maybe Patsy came home and found JonBenet needed medical attention.

    Ok. Let me see if I can figure those dates out.
  15. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, from ACR's timeline, I get this. I looked up some of the information, but so far, all I have found is the Christmas Parade that year was on Dec. 6. The application had a deadline of Nov. 26. There is a fax number at the top with a possible date, but it's not clear for me what the date is.

    I looked up the info in DOI where the Ramseys talked about their annual participation in the Christmas parade since 1993. It started with Burke's Boy Scout group. But in 1996, it was JonBenet and "some friends" riding on the back of a convertible driven by the Archulettas. But there is not one word about the fact that the John and Patsy were in New York with the Stines, not at the parade.

    The first New York trip with the mothers and daughters seems to have the days of the trip obscured in DOI, like much else in this case. In DOI, the Rams give no specific date. I think ACR simply put 11/00 to indicate some time in November. One of the glaring omissions from their book is specific information about times and dates. That told me right there they had no intention of ever clearing up those mysteries, only deepening them.

    But Patsy admits in the 2000 Atlanta interview that she and John and the Stines were in New York the day of the parade, which was a Friday, Dec. 6. But John's company Christmas party was Dec. 7, Saturday.

    So the Ramseys spent Thanksgiving on Nov. 21 in Atlanta. Then Patsy's big birthday party was on Nov. 30. She and John were in New York on Dec. 6 with the Stines. Did they go there for a few days after Patsy's party on Nov. 30, putting them there for at least a few of the days between Nov. 30 to Dec. 7, when they must have flown home, because they'd have gone to the Christmas parade if they went home on the 6th, I would think.

    So the parade was on Dec. 6. and Patsy and John were in New York, but back home for the party on Dec. 7. Patsy shopped at McGuckin's Dec. 9. Then Patsy called Dr. Beuf's office 3 times on Dec. 17.

    Looking up the Christmas parade stuff in their book, I figured out that the hard-to-read part of that parade application (second url) says something close to "___ with Pam Archuletta Exec Dir of Boulder County United Way."
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2006
  16. Cranberry

    Cranberry Member

    Hi KK, In the 6/98 PR interview (line 236) Haney asked if JBR had day of week panties and PR confirms it. (Not narrowed down to new panties though) Also it says (line 579) Dr Beufs office was called 3 times on Dec 7 @ 6:28, 6:50 and 6:59. So it looks like the Dr was called before the Christmas Party? and the day or day after they returned home from the NY visit. PR couldn't remember why he was called 3 times though. Also I wonder if the exact times of the calls were from PHONE RECORDS or the Dr's records. Sorry I don't know how to post the lines from the transcript - thank you ACandyRose again for the site and resources and Why Nut's site is literally moving with the video evidence. All of you help us noobs enormously in your own way. Thanks to all @ FFJ.
  17. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thank you, Cranberry! Great. I have the NE book and can look that up. You saved me a lot of time. And you caught an error I made with my recap, as well as a discrepancy between Thomas' information that Patsy called Beuf on the 17th, but Haney said to Patsy it was on the 7th. Either there's a typo in one of those, or in transcribing the interview tapes for the NE, the 7th was substituted for the 17th--so that means we need another source to pin that down. Let me check PMPT.

    What I'm looking for now is old information about when the Ramseys were in New York with the Stines. I didn't remember that until I read this transcript again from the 2000 interview.

    But Dec. 7 was a Saturday. So if the true date of Patsy's phone calls is the 7th, that would have to be the day they returned from New York and the calls would have gone to an answering service, I think.
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Ok, I found a couple of pages of summary of JB's medical history from Dr. Beuf in PMPT. But there is no mention in there that I could locate using the index of Beuf's name stating anything about those three phone calls on either the 7th or the 17th.

    One curious thing Schiller did write is that when Patsy was diagnosed with cancer in '93, JonBenet "went" to stay with Nedra. It was during this time, the book states, that JB regressed in her toilet training, eating, and develped sinus problems and bad breath, as well as developing a very bad diaper rash. Of course, at three years of age, if she was sent to Atlanta to live in an environment she wasn't used to and missed her parents, that seems natural enough, regression.

    But then, OF COURSE, we have another story, as one of the maids is interviewed for a few pages and says Nedra moved in with the Ramseys during that time, which we have heard. Susan Savage took care of JonBenet during that time, the former maid said.

    I did find where Haney asked Patsy about the nightgown found with JonBenet's body. They go through her sleepwear and Patsy said that JonBenet had slept Christmas Eve in the pink pjs, the top of which is the one on her bed in the picture. Patsy also stated that those pink pjs were under the pillow. The thing that caught my eye also is that Patsy started out to say one thing about those pink pjs and stopped herself--red flag--corrected her flow of thought, and then said JonBenet wore the white long johns that night.

    So...was Patsy just had been awhile. But there is that one little problem: if those pjs were under the pillow, where are the bottoms and why couldn't Patsy find them to put on the sleeping child? There's the top. Where are the pink pj bottoms that JB wore Christmas Eve, that should have been under the pillow, that Patsy couldn't find there that night? Of course, maybe LE has had them for 10 years. How would we know? They don't ask her where about them that I remember.

    So Patsy had to pull off black velvet pants, never noticing the huge panties still on the sleeping JB, and then she rumaged around in the drawers until she came upon the long johns and pulled those on the child, pulled up the covers and left clothes lying all over the bed.

    And the upshot of all this is the other 6 pairs of undies in the package of 12/14 Bloomies managed to get lost by LE and found by the RST, who keeps them for 6 years and then turns the over to Keenan, being so cooperative with LE and all. m

    Oh, are the black velvet pants the black item at the end of the bed, on the chest? Or are they the black item on the other bed...?

    You know, I do remember we once might have even figured out what both the black and the colored thingie on the other bed are, but I can't for the life of me remember what the conclusion was. Anybody else remember?

    And here is the pink pj top turned inside out on the bed:
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2006
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    BINGO KK. My model will do. It has collapsed a little at the shoulders and I have to be careful with one of the legs, but I've dressed it in a leotard and tights and the flaws aren't too obvious :)

    Most importantly, the measurements are correct, so even if the surface is slightly lumpy, it doesn't matter because what we want to see is the "fit".

    I have to go out this afternoon and my camera needs to charge up, but I'll post the images this evening.

    For the record, Tootsie is 47inches in height and she weights 46lbs - the same height and one pound heavier than JonBenet was when she died. She is therefore almost exactly the same size.
  20. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Girls Size 12-14 "Bloomies" Modeled On a Six-Year-Old Like JonBenet

    OK I apologise in advance for my shoddy workmanship and poor photography. My model collapsed a little when I moved it - a shoulder and one of the legs. I left it over the weekend to dry and this evening I carefully padded it out so that the measurements were accurate. It's a bit lumpier than a human model would be, but the measurements are correct and that is the main thing.

    My Tootsie's measurements are as follows:-

    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

    NOTE: The names of the files all end in the word "resized" - that has nothing to do with the model but refers to the photographs. I resized the photos to post them here.

    The first three photographs are showing the model's waist, hip and thigh being measured.

    ETA - sorry that should be thighs 13 inches - my Tootsie does NOT have 16 inch thighs!

    Attached Files:

  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