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. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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 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?

  2. wombat

    wombat Member

    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**).
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    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

    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 me the evidence.


    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.
  4. Freebird

    Freebird Active Member

    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.....
  5. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    jameson addressed the topic - and dismissed it. That was to be expected. From then on in, the other members diverted the discussion into one about the bedwetting - that was also one outcome I predicted (i.e. diversion - not necessariily bedwetting).

    This isn't about bedwetting. Actually, if it weren't for the fact that Patsy admitted knowing about the huge knickers, it could even have been twisted into intruder evidence. If Patsy's reaction had been different, I would have considered it intruder evidence because I do not think there is any way Jonbenet chose to wear those knickers OR that any self-respecting, caring mother would have put them on her.

    I think it's another bugaboo.

    I've seen old photos of poverty showing little children wearing nothing but vests and too large knickers dangling down round about their knees - barefoot and dirty. I associate these too large knickers with poverty and deprivation. I don't associate them with the Ramsey family.

    My photos show how uncomfrotable they would have been to wear - how they would have slipped down - maybe even fallen down gradually.

    Anyone who attempts to excuse that or dismiss it needs a reality check.
  6. Cranberry

    Cranberry Member

    It was mentioned somewhere about the panties being new and unwashed. I'll have to go back and read. That would negate what PR said about them being opened and in the drawer, free for all. Is it possible that the panty package with remaining panties were still in the house but out of sight, like down in a Christmas stocking or something? Didn't sister take loads of stuff out? No mistaking - the intruder is really out of the loop on this one. Jayelles visual is shocking - and Jayelles is right - we have another bugaboo, with IMO what I see as PR's explanation/acceptance of the Wednesday panties.
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    jameson compares Jonbenet wearing thse massive knickers to her own children wearing her nightgown or their father's t-shirt.

    There is no comparison!

    Have jameson's children ever put on their parent's underpants with the crotch dangling at the knees and the waistband slipping down over their hips?

    My daughters have pinched my nightshirts and Tootsie wore one of my t-shirts as a nightie on our recent trip because I'd acidentally packed both her nighties in the "big" suitcase instead of packing one of them in the overnight bag. My older daughter also pinches her father and brothers' t-shirts for a borrow. Upper/outer garments are quite, quite different.
    However if I'd forgotten to pack knickers for her - there is no way I'd even consider letting her use a pair of mine!

    jameson & the RST's failure to even question this is absolute proof of their blinkered view of the case. It seems that to them, the Ramseys are above and beyond reproach on any matter!
  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    This is real evidence - the kind of evidence used in a court room, and that is where it matters. Nothing that the chief Rambot jameson states on her forum is evidence of anything except her own one-sided view. She can swear something is a fact and ignore whatever she wants to ignore. None of it matters one bit, because, if this case EVER gets to a courtroom, which I doubt will happen, at least in my lifetime, there will be two sides to the story, not one, and the kind of "evidence" the Rambots use at the swamp will be demolished by opposing counsel.

    Excellent job, Jayelles. This is how I pictured those big panties on a six year old of JB's age - crotch hanging to her knees. She would have been pulling them up constantly, had she picked them out and worn them by herself.

    Patsy was lying. What reason would Patsy have to lie about anything?

    Oh my..
  9. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    I hardly see how they would have EVER stayed up.
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Interestingly, they are NOT how I imagined them. I imagined them to fit at the waist and leg openings and to be baggy all over - like a baby's plastic pants look like when they are a bit on the large side. I thought the leg and waist elastic would have pulled those openings in.

    (does that make sense?)

    You are right though about this being evidence - of the kind shown in a courtroom. The pictures clearly show how UNLIKELY it was that JonBenet was wearing them that day and how LIKELY it is that they were put on her after she was no longer conscious and able to care about wearing massive ill-fitting knickers.

    I just had a chat with my Mother about this and I showed her the model with the knickers on. She says that she would never have permitted a child to wear them and that there was no point even in having them on since her bottom would have been exposed back and front.
  11. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    It kind of puts to rest jameson's theory that the intruder molested JB by putting her hands down her pants, doesn't it. Why would he have to do that when she would have been practically naked from the ill-fating panties? This is just more example of how jameson makes things up in order to try to fill up those pesky holes that appear in her version of things - see, no one took JB's underwear or long johns off that night - the intruder slid his hands down her pants and blah blah blah.

    Jameson's descriptions of the molestation have always been a bit over the top, perhaps revealing more about jameson than about JB.
  12. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Now that we can see how big they were, the question to raise is, how did small blood spots manage to get from JonBenet's body onto the "inner aspect" of the crotch of the underwear, given that said crotch was so very loose that it could not in any reasonable sense be expected to lay flat against her skin in the appropriate area the way well-fitting underwear would? Even if you take into consideration the presence of the long underwear over the size 12, Patsy would have had to carefully smooth the 12 pair over JonBenet's groin before equally carefully pulling up the long underwear to hold the 12 in place. If a person favors an intruder theory, this is also true. Without that careful placement, blood shed from JonBenet's genitals could just as likely have ended up on the long underwear but not the 12, due to the crotch of the 12 having gotten pushed out of place over to the left or right.

    With this explicit size comparison available for evaluation, we have to really, really question now the process by which blood could credibly have gotten on to the crotch of the 12 pair. A simple assault by placing a hand inside her underwear and then a bleed of a couple of drops no longer seems an ordinary result given no assurance that the fabric of the crotch would be where it needs to be for such a result.
  13. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I've been thinking about the blood found on the underwear, as well. Considering the bad fit of the underwear, there doesn't seem to be any way for the blood to have gotten there EXCEPT after the fact.

    It appears an attempt may have been made to clean JB's genitals, leaving us to wonder how much blood there was before she was cleaned and what other evidence was removed by the cleaning. What the perp failed to take into account, apparently, was that even after the cleaning of visible blood, leakage from her vagina would continue to occur, even after her clothing had been pulled back up.

    Whoever redressed her after the cleaning most likely pulled the too-big underwear up as far as they would go on her, meaning the crotch would have been fitted next to her bottom, and the waistband probably was pulled up over her chest area. The residual blood from her vagina then leaked onto the panty fabric.

    I can't think of any other way it could have happened.
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I think this whole unmentionables thing raises a lot of questions. As Why_Nut points out, the crotch is so loose and dangly that it would be a hit or a miss where they landed if pushed into place by the long johns being hoisted up - unless the knickers themselves were hoisted up to her armpits first.

    Elsewhere, someone posted that it was unlikely that Patsy and Jonbenet would have kept to the days of the week. This is interesting because I had a debate with my husband several weeks ago about this. When we were packing for our trip, some of the days of the week knickers were in in the laundry "chain" and I wasn't fussing about hunting them down to pack. On the day we left, Hubby looked out clothes for Tootsie to wear and he put out Sunday knickers when it was actually a Thursday. I tut-tutted and replced them with Disney knickers because the Thursday was one of the missing days. Hubby asked what the problem was and I said that the whole point about day-of-the-week knickers was that you wear the appropriate day ON that day! Tootsie is fussy about that because she's a neat little girl and she likes things to be right. Another person added that if she was wearing Sunday knickers on Thursday - it might suggest she hadn't changed them for 4/5 days (something I hadn't even thought about but it's true!).

    So from personal experience, I can say that we do always wear the correct day and if the correct day isn't in the drawer -we choose different knickers!
  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I'm trying to get my head around a thread at WS. Do some people believe that:-

    1) Jonbenet was wearing the 4-6 Wednesday knickers when she was murdered but that

    2) The perp or stager got his/her DNA on them and so

    3) The Wednesday knickers were removed from the 12/14 packet as a substitute?

    This to me would suggest that the perp/stager either didn't know that they were the wrong size or that he/she didn't think the police would notice.
  16. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Well, that actually isn't a bad theory, Jayelles, but it certainly wouldn't eliminate one of the Ramseys as the perp; in fact, it would implicate them more, since intruders typically don't have knowledge of where certain items of clothing are stored. Most people I know don't store underwear in the bathroom cabinet, so an intruder would have had to have gone rummaging through all the drawers in JB's room and bathroom, and I haven't heard of any such evidence of rummaging through drawers. Besides, why would an intruder take a child from her bedroom down two flights of stairs, then go back upstairs to get more underwear for her?
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I beg to differ here because we store our underwear in the bathroom unit drawers. Having said that, we didn't do this in the days before en-suites! JonBenet had her own en-suite.
  18. 1000 Sparks

    1000 Sparks Active Member


    iirc, weren't JonBenet's underwear taken in as evidence? It doesn't say where they them from...hamper/floor/clean in drawer..

    maybe whoever redressed her wanted clean ones and there were none to be had?????
  19. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Maybe they didn't realise the significance?
  20. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Ouch. Well, okay, then. I stand corrected.
  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