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

    Guess jams never heard of the chain of evidence.
  2. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    And yet, going back even further...another version:

  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    And here is at least one source I think I got the impression the panties were new and not washed. Notice the heading is for the post, so I don't know if that was actually in the article or not, unless I can find the original online complete:

  4. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Well, here's another tidbit I found, SAYING WOOD HAS GIVEN THE UNDERWEAR TO THE DA...and THIS is a source jams backs up on the then 9 DNA markers found:

  5. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    The RSt are finally discussing the photos - but as predicted they are being dismissive or are simply making personal attacks. There is always a delay when they don't know how to respond to something!

    I KNOW the model looks odd - I explained that it collapsed when I moved it and that it is rather lumpy because the stookey was drying on the surface as I was laying it on. I am not an artist/sculptor nor have I ever pretended to be one. As I said before, I have made numerous dummies before - but not of a child and never with legs. The dummies I have made have been tailor's dummies - made to measure tailors dummies for costume work. A tailors dummy takes over a week to make. As it happens, I ended up stuffing the dummy to fill out the collapsed bit and to make sure that the dimensions were correct - otherwise I would simply have wasted my time making it in the first place. Believe it or not, I have a sound reputation as a Research Assistant and I have worked on countless projects where precision and accuracy were crucial. If I cound not have achieved the coorect dimentsions with the first dummy, I would have made another and another - until I got it right.

    The dummy might not have smooth skin - but it is the correct size.


    Beachbum suggested that the knickers were cheap Bloomies and not the same as the ones JBR wore.

    My answer - Nope. Both sets of knickers I have used were purchased from Bloomingdales in New York. I paid approximately $25 for each packet. Beachbum reminds me of the poster "Lilac" who made rude comments about my previous purchase in Bloomingdales. These cheap shots say a lot about the poster. Had Beachbum done her research, she would have known that they were Bloomingdale Bloomies (does anyone else make Bloomies? I thought it was a play on Bloomingdales and bloomers).

    Rainsong pointed out that JonBenet and Tootsie might be the same height and weight, but that doesn't mean their waist measurements are the same. That althought the larger Bloomies dangle on Tootsie, we don't know what they would have looked like on JonBenet.

    LOL - true. I already pointed out that Tootsie is 1lb heavier than JonBenet. Did Rainsong even consider that JonBenet was THINNER than Tootsie and that the knickers would have looked even more baggy. Seriously - it's unlikely that there would be a massive difference in their sizes. JonBenet wasn't a chubby child by any stretch of the imagination. She would need to have been a couple of stone (1 stone = 14 lbs) heavier to have remotely filled those knickers.

    BeachBum says the dummy is laughable. Maybe. I've seen children who have missing or non-matching limbs and children with burns which made their skin lumpy and uneven. Does Beachbum think they are "laughable"?

    The important point here (a point which Beachbum clearly misses) is that the dummy and the live model are the same size. That is all that was needed to demonstrate the fit and comparison in sizes of the two pairs of knickers. The RST might not like that, but that's tough. The model FACTUALLY shows that the size JonBenet normally wore fitted perfectly and the size she was wearing would have been hanging off her. If the best they can do is to take cheap shots at me and at my "artwork", then they really must be desperate to defend their beloved Ramseys.

    Sleuths they are not.

    Margoo says it wouldn't stand up in a court and asks how this proves anything about who murdered Jonbenet.

    My answer - I beg to differ about it standing up in court. The model clearly shows the difference in fit between the two sizes and if there were a court case which required to demonstrate that particular thing to a jury, I believe a model like this would do the trick (perhaps not this particular model though - something much more professional I am sure).

    Point 2 - it doesn't prove who murdered Jonbenet. It does however raise some interestng questions. Questions which the RST clearly do not like. It suggests that Patsy was either lying or that she had some very odd parenting skills - to allow her daughter to "use" knickers which were almost large enough to fit Patsy herself. Had Patsy been shocked or denied knowledge of the knickers - it would have lent support to the intruder theory. It demonstrates yet another inconsistency about the ramseys in that patsy spent a fortune having clothes custom made for JonBenet - so why would she allow her to wear ridiculous, non-fitting underwear?

    Finally, someone (Margoo I think) suggested that sizes have changed over the years. That is true for adults. Quite recently I bought US size 8 jeans, yet my late MIL's US size 8 long black skirt (20+ years old) wouldn't look near me - it was much too small.

    I would say that in the past 20 years, sizes have crept up maybe 2 sizes in adult clothes? However, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the same thing has happened with childrenswear.

    Another flaw in Margoo's argument is that if the larger bloomies have increased in size, then the smaller bloomies would have made a commensurate increase.

    These knickers are made to fit a girl aged 12-14 years old. This would be a girl whose average height would be perhaps 5ft - 5ft 6 who would have hips too.

    The RST are flapping in the wind. The best they can come up with are lame excuses and cheap shots. The images speak for themselves - even if JonBenet cannot.
  6. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    This is also the truth, from the FBI's CODIS website:

    In case it needs pointing out, CODIS requires 13 STR loci for positive identification - not 9 clear and one that comes close to the standard.

    Here are the 13 STR loci needed for positive identification under CODIS regulations:


    Once again, the DNA in this case is a non issue. It is not good enough to positively identify anyone and it is worthless to the prosecution of this case. But, let the Rambots rattle on about how it's going to solve this case. It hasn't, and it won't.
  7. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    OK, I swear this is the last of my files on this...but oh, THIS IS GOOD!

    Really. You're gonna' like it. I'M NOT MAKING THIS UP! :punk:

    You can take the first one, WY, because it's more DNA spin! I have read a number of old posts and news articles...and the BEST even Wood can say is the DNA in the panties and under the nails is PROBABLY a match. Of course, we know it's not a match. It's just Ram spin.

    Notice that in the above criticisms of LE/BORG, if you think about the swamp reaction to Jayelles' demonstration of the 12/14 panties, jams has just described the swampsters refusal to even consider this critical evidence.

    It's just too good, isn't it? The Ram investigators took it; no, someone from the family found it when unpacking; no, the RST investigators got it; no, SOMEONE held it for safekeeping; she doesn't know who has it; the RST had it; Wood got it; Keenan has it. The BPD wouldn't take it; the RST wouldn't give it to them, but kept if for safekeeping; the DA may or may not have tested it for DNA. Anybody else feeling dizzy? :hypno:


    I SWEAR! Some people get NO RESPECT! You did just what she asked, and BETTER, by getting the EXACT BLOOMIES, and the thanks you get? HA! NOT IMPORTANT! MEANS NOTHING! JB HAD A VERY BIG BUTT! :violin:

    And just for you, WY! We are accused of...drum roll, please...NOT THINKING! HAHAHA As if their own mistakes are honest errors, but OURS are MISINFORMATION! Have you EVAH seen anyone who can twist information until it is FUBAR better than jams? LP MAKES AN ERROR, AND IT'S OUR FAULT! Jams should work for the government, she really should. hahaha
    And just for good it is again!

    After this thread, I think anyone looking for the remotest honesty can see WHO is thinking and WHO is not!

    Sometimes, all that work just pays off, doesn't it?

  8. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    I will take care of the DNA issue in a minute. Something else leaps out at me, and it has to be addressed.

    The 15 pairs of underwear the police removed from JB's bathroom were all size 4 - 6. In typical jameson fashion, she spins this to mean that the BPD was incompetent:

    The key point here is that jameson is making it up as she goes. She says she DOESN"T KNOW (if) they took ALL of them (or not). This in itself is an assinie statement. Why would the cops take part of the underwear but not the rest? As incompetent as the RST likes to make the BPD look, they weren't so incompetent as to take only size 4-6 underwear and leave the size 12's in the drawer, especially in light of the fact that JB's body was wearing size 12's.

    Any rational person, then, would have to believe there WERE NO SIZE 12's in the drawers when the police removed the underwear as evidence. It doesn't make sense that they would leave it behind.

    Which brings me to this statement:

    Hello? In the first place, there is such a thing as "chain of evidence." There is a good chance that the Ramsey investigators did have possession of the opened package of size 12 underwear. Why they decided they had the right to withhold evidence from the BPD is another question, but my question is - since a rational person would question why, if the size 12 panties were in JB's panty drawer as the RST has claimed, the police did not gather them as evidence. And, the logical answer is - the panties were NOT in the panty drawer when evidence was gathered. In fact, the panties were not in JB's bedroom or bathroom drawers, or they would have been collected as evidence.

    The question, then, is where was that package of underwear and how did the Ramsey investigators come to have possession of them? Were they, perhaps, in John and Patsy's quarters on the third floor? Or were they in the basement, perhaps in a hastily opened gift-wrapped package? Or, did Ms. Pam make off with the package, only to have them mysteriously reappear in the house after the forensics people had been there?

    There are too many unanswered questions and very vague references as to how the Ramsey investigators got their hands on the package of underwear. Chain of evidence means there is a clear record of who has handled the evidence, when (day and time) the evidence was collected all the way down the line to the evidence collection room. All we've been told is the Ramsey investigators got the evidence and kept it in safe keeping until Lacy was in power. How flucked up is that?

    Of course, I have to keep in mind that it's jameson who is dishing out this info, and she has been known to fabricate things in the past.

    On to the DNA. The long and short of it is - the fingernail DNA, ACCORDING TO JAMESON in a post at the swamp a couple of years ago, had only two or three identifiable loci. The panty DNA (allegedly) had 9 clear loci and one iffy loci.

    The posters at FFJ are mostly of superior intelligence, and it's not really necessary for me to tell anyone here what this means. Suffice to say - the fingernail DNA was crap and didn't "match" the panty DNA. Those two or three identifiable loci in the fingernail material could very well "match" two or three identifiable loci in any one of our members' DNA. But, what of the remaining 10 or 11 loci that have to match in order to make an identification?

    jameson tries to snow everyone, but she can't back any of this up with science. She's a Ramsey talking head, and a weak one, at that. Inside a court room, she would be ripped to shreds and put out for the cows to poop on. Do not be misled by jameson's drivel.
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    Well done in finding this. It's just more proof of the lies which have been told in this case.
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Here's some more information (it only goes up to 13 and the large Bloomies are 12-14 years)
    The average height for a 4 year old is 41 3/4 inches
    The average height for a 6 year old is 46 inches
    The average height for a 12 year old is 60 1/2 inches
    The average height for a 13 year old is 61 1/4 inches

    The average weight for a 4 year old is 38 3/4 lbs
    The average weight for a 6 year old is 47 1/2 lbs
    The average weight for a 12 year old is 94 lbs
    The average weight for a 13 year old is 103 lbs

    Not quite twice the height, but certainly twice the weight.
  11. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Wood and the RST are the only one's claiming Caucasian. That's important.

    That writer doesn't get it: the DNA was already there when she bled into the panties. And as for what the police should or shouldn't have done, I don't see them telling this guy how to be a better journalist, although he could use the help!
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Not to mention, the DNA reports from the many crocs states clearly IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE DONOR, the Rams are excluded....

    Guess "IF" is too big a word for the RST to decipher.
  13. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    "Not to mention, the DNA reports from the many crocs states clearly IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE DONOR, the Rams are excluded...."

    Not just that. DNA can NOT exclude suspects except in rape cases, and EVEN THEN, if there's only one rapist and the victim is not sexually active (I hope Nifong's reading this). JB was NOT raped, in the typical sense. In all other cases, DNA can only include suspects, not exclude them. That's what everyone forgets.
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    More inconsistencies

    BORG Rainsong has finally decided that the model experiment is meaningless. Not only does she think that it's meaningless because my Tootsie - who is the same weight and height as JonBenet was when she died - isn't actually JonBenet and there COULD be some size differences which would make all the difference .... BORG Rainsong is now also claiming that we don't know for sure that the knickers Jonbenet was wearing were actually size 12.... She doesn't accept the word of the investigators - because they "lied" about other things.

    Hey folks - this tells me that BORG Rainsong, for one, is secretly SHOCKED about the knickers. She cannot believe that JonBenet would wear such oversized knickers OR that Patsy would put her in them - therefore .... it must be a mistake! It must have been smaller knickers - size 8 or 10 perhaps?

    Let's think about this. Bloomies come in three sizes - Small (4/6), Medium (8/10) and Large (12/14). The reports (which no-one has ever disputed UNTIL NOW!) have said she was found in size 12 - which is large. Patsy bought the knickers for her niece - whom she claimed in the Atlanta interviews was 12 when she bought them. OK - bear with me.

    Patsy was also asked in those interviews what size she normally bought for JonBenet and she said "size 8-10".

    Are we to believe that Patsy bought size 8-10 for her 12 year old niece ... and size 8-10 for 6 year old Jonbenet?

    Are we?

    (Close your mouth BORG Rainsong - we are not a codfish...)
  15. Watching You

    Watching You Superior Bee Admin

    Correct, Punisher. There are too many variables regarding DNA, such as the origiin of the DNA, when it was deposited, the quality of the DNA, placing the owner of the DNA at the crime scene at the critical time, connecting the DNA to the crime...

    In this case, no one can even connect the DNA to the crime. Just because there is degraded DNA in the underwear doesn't mean the owner of it had anything to do with JB's murder. A good suspect in this case would be one who could be placed at the crime scene at the time of JB's estimated death and who had left other physical evidence of being there - evidence such as fingerprints, fibers, hairs, footprints (no, not the HiTech logo that also can't be dated), blood, saliva... Once that suspect were found, then the DNA might or might not further bolster the case against him/her.

    Also, as Punisher says, just because a perp's DNA is not found does not mean s/he isn't the killer.
  16. Texan

    Texan FFJ Senior Member


    Let's think about this. Bloomies come in three sizes - Small (4/6), Medium (8/10) and Large (12/14). The reports (which no-one has ever disputed UNTIL NOW!) have said she was found in size 12 - which is large. Patsy bought the knickers for her niece - whom she claimed in the Atlanta interviews was 12 when she bought them. OK - bear with me.

    Patsy was also asked in those interviews what size she normally bought for JonBenet and she said "size 8-10".

    Are we to believe that Patsy bought size 8-10 for her 12 year old niece ... and size 8-10 for 6 year old Jonbenet?

    So Patsy bought JB size 8-10 panties but she had a drawer full of size 6. Patsy didn't even try to lie in a believable manner. Probably she was so tired of trying to keep track of her lies and because some people were willing to buy into whatever lies she spewed forth that she simply stopped trying to make her lies sound logical.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2006
  17. sue

    sue Member

    Thanks for the very good pictures and modeling of the Bloomies.

    I have some experience that might help here.
    I have a disabled daughter who was 10 when JB was killed. My daughter wore pull-ups because she was incontinent. Since she wore them during the day, we did put panties (knickers, I guess to the British) over the top of the pull ups under her trousers. I don't remember what the largest available size of pull-ups was, but my daughter was larger than the weight on the package, but could wear that size because she is fairly slim. The large size panties in the photos are way too big to fit over pullups for a child who would fit in the smaller panties.
    We actually used the same size panties as would fit our daughter without the pull-ups to put over her pull-up. The panties stretched and fit snugly, but were not uncomfortable. The pull-ups, even back 10 years ago were not very thick - maybe a 1/2 inch thick at the most when wet. So, you are talking about the same size or maybe one size larger panties than would normally be worn by someone that size.
    Current Goodnights (pull-ups in larger sizes for people up to 125 pounds) are less than 1/8 inch thick.
  18. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Thank you for sharing this information with us, sue. I think we can all agree that these 12/14 Bloomies are in no way explained by anything we can rationally imagine.

    I just wish the press would get hold of this during this media mess going on right now. Maybe they'd be willing to ask why Karr would hunt down one pair of undies that were obviously too large and redress the child in them.

    And why Patsy would lie about it, as well?
  19. adair

    adair Member

    This is very interesting.

    I have a question, and i hope someone can answer it.

    Was PR ever asked about the bloomies when she took the lie detector test? And what kind of medication was she on when she took it?? (if any?)

    IT would be very interesting to know if PR had her own 'day' of the week bloomies....
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    As far as the polygraph tests we KNOW about, no, Patsy was not asked about anything in detail. The tests are very strange, if you read how they are carried out and what is asked. But this does seem to be how they are carried out in general. Would the FBI have done it differently? We'll never know.

    Adair, here is a link to a press conference the Ramseys held after their second self-sponsored polygrapher, ED Gelb, completed tests with them that they passed. If you go about 1/4 way down the scroll bar, you'll get to the part of the conference where Gelb speaks and tells exactly what he asked them, each, and the results.

    However, we don't know what their first polygrapher asked them. Or how many times. What Wood told us, as you can see, is that those tests were "inconclusive." The guy who gave those, alas, was unvailable for this press conference.
  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