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. Chebrock

    Chebrock Member

    And KoldKase, there was a polygrapher before those 2. He gave the Ramseys a list of his requirements for them to sign or something. One item on the list was that the Ramseys take drug tests before the polygraph. They refused the drug test and were told to move on.

    Asking what drugs they were on is a very fair question. I'm afraid it's one that will probably never be answered.
  2. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland


    So now we have it from an official source that the Bloomies she wore were size 12-14 as illustrated in the model experiment?

    Many thanks for that. After I did the experiment and posted about it, Rainsong from over yonder pointed out that the only source we had for the large Bloomies being size 12 was a tabloid report. Rainsong reckoned they might actually have been size 8-10. It had been my intention to have a friend obtain a packet of size 8-10 Bloomies when she travels to new York in a couple of weeks in order to repeat the experiment, but there's no need for that now.

    Source for Bloomies being size 12-14 is page 62 of the Boulder Affadavit for the arrest of John Mark Karr. The Bloomie images are therefore fairly accurate.
  3. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Jayelles, on this very thread, I have quoted about half a dozen times the following, from a transcript of the 2000 Atlanta interviews:

    (This transcript is transcribed by a qualified court reporter, released by Lin Wood, I believe, and located now at ACandyRose's website.)

    In the Atlanta interviews in 2000 the following Boulder LE questioned Patsy Ramsey for some time about these Bloomies:

    THESE DA LAWYERS AND MEMBERS OFTHE BPD said several times that the Bloomies found on JonBenet were size 12/14.

    So that's TWO sources.

    They also said the 15 pair of undies found in JonBenet's underwear drawer were size 4/6.

    Rainsong doesn't know the facts about this case. She only knows what John Douglas tells her. He only knows what the RST told him. And for $30K he duly came to the conclusion the prime suspects for whom he worked are innocent.

    After telling the press that the Ramseys are innocent and trying to interject himself into the BPD investigation on the Ramseys' behalf and being rebuked, Douglas began dissing the BPD because they just wouldn't listen to him. Finally realizing that being on the Ramsey payroll might appear to compromise his opinion, Douglas tried giving the money back later to the Ramseys as if somehow that would retroactively make him MORE credible. That didn't erase that he did work for them when he put his reputation on the line by saying they are innocent, based on a couple of hours worth of an interview with John Ramsey. It's not rocket science to figure out Douglas is NOT going to go back then and say, oh, gee, I gave the money back...and now I can say I WAS WRONG--Ramseys, guilty!

    These people. How gullible and starstruck do you have to be to not see the logical fallacies in Douglas' own argument? It just disappoints immensely because so many of us actually respected Douglas for years. Now he can't even admit what is obvious to anyone with a working brain?

    I hope Douglas and Rainsong are living happily ever after. A murdered child is not.
  4. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    And so we see the RST attempting once again to put spin on the size 12-14 Bloomies as though they were just a myth.

    OEJ reckons they were probably more like a size 10-12. Rainsong echoes her previous claims that there is no official source for them being size 12-14.

    YES THERE IS - page 62 of Karr's arrest warrant. We've been saying it for years and it has been repeatedly dismissed as "BORG" misinformation but we have it for the record now. No misinformation. Just pure fact.

    The bottom line is that the huge Bloomies are yet another bugaboo and the RST simply cannot accept the FACT that JonBenet was wearing massive, uncomfortable knickers which would have been hanging down almost at her knees. I am firmly of the belief that there is not a bat's chance in H*ell that Patsy would have allowed her to go out in them OR that JonBenet would have wanted to wear them. More and more, I believe they must have been placed on her after she died. The problem is that Patsy acknowledged that she knew about them - that JonBenet had opened the package and they had decided "just to use them".

    Here's another bugaboo. JonBenet couldn't read scripted handwriting and the labels on her presents had to be read to her. Well my Tootsie who is 6 is the same. She can read book print but she requires assistance in reading the Bloomies waistbands. I believe that JonBenet may also have struggled in reading the Bloomies waistbands and that someone would have had to help her.

    The RST tried to dismiss the outsized knickers as not being too bad - that maybe they were very slightly big for her - until the photographic evidence was produced showing just how massive they are compared to the size 4-6 which was the correct size for Jonbenet's height and build. The photos show just how ridiculous it was for Patsy to have condoned them or for Jonbenet to have accepted them. At first the RST ignored the experiment - a thread about them was deleted. Then jameson started another thread - to spindoctor and minimise the importance of this particular fact. Then they decided that the size must be wrong - that the "BORG" was lying about the size. Thanks to Karr, we had our claims confirmed but yet again, they've decided to forget the whole thing and ignore the facts.

    Why would any serious sleuth want to ignore evidence? Unlike the Hi-Tec bootprint and packing peanut, the Bloomies ARE real evidence because they can be dated - the victim was wearing them when her body was found (we don't know if she was wearing them when she died though).

    The facts about the Bloomies are as follows:-

    1) They are novelty knickers sold only by Bloomingdales in New York. They are a souvenir item and the store has them displayed around the department and at the tills etc.
    2) They do NOT come in different styles (i.e. high cut legs etc) - there is just one style - the plain full brief.
    3) They come in small, medium and large sizes - 4-6, 8-10 and 12-14.
    4) They are generously cut, the 4-6 fits my almost 7 year old comfortably now. The size 12-14 are more my size.
    5) The size 12-14 would have hung on Jonbenet's hips with the crotch reaching down to her knees.
    6) The leg holes of the 12-14 are so massive that if the garment twisted , her entire backside and frontside would have been fully exposed.
    7) They would have been most uncomfortable to wear and I cannot believe that any intelligent 6 year old would have contemplated wearing them.
    8) They look so ridiculous that I cannot imagine any self-respecting mother ALLOWING her child to wear them.

    So how did JonBenet Ramsey end up wearing them in death? Who put them on her? Why was Justice Seeker to nervous about even asking about the oversized knickers ?.... And why are the RST so desperate to minimise the above?
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2006
  5. Amber

    Amber Member

    I'm halfway reading through PMPT for the first time and I'm sure I just read that the Bloomies she was found in were almost adult size...I did a double take when I read that.

    The WHY interests me: The Ramsey's are determined that JBR went to bed on 25th December and that was the last time they saw her alive.

    They reinforce this with the date on on the gravestone - 25th December.

    They RE-inforced this, IMHO, with the oversized Bloomies...they needed a clean pair of knickers (sorry, I'm English:)) that had Wednesday on them ie. 25th December. If she'd soiled her normal sized Wednesday Bloomies and her others were in the wash ( ie also solied) perhaps the size 12's - meant to be a present were the ONLY WEDNESDAY Bloomies available. We only have PR's word that JBR wanted the Big ones and JBR isn't around to argue.

    They had to be Bloomies with Wednesday, not only to reinforce the straight to bed on the 25th, but because MANY people at the White's house who could have assisted JBR in the toilet on Christmas day would know she had Bloomies/knickers with Wednesday written on they had no choice. They over-thought the cover up and made themselves look silly IMHO.
  6. BluesStrat

    BluesStrat BANNED !!!!!

    But Patsy claimed she got JB ready for bed, and could always have said she changed the Bloomies at that time. The real question is why DIDN'T she change them? Why would a mother put her daughter to bed in underwear WAY too large for her if she was changing her clothes? Especially a child who was known to have bed wetting problems.
  7. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Nothing about the Bloomies makes sense. You've all seen the Bloomies on my not-very-bonny model (whuch has the correct measurements nevertheless). However, I have seen them on a living, moving child and they looked even more ridiculous on her. My Model hasn't got much of a buttock-curve (i.e. it's kind of flat at the backside). My Tootsie's buttocks make the Bloomies hang and gape even more than the model does. IMO, it's not just a case of me doubting that Patsy would have allowed JonBenet to wear them, I actually think she would have been HORRIFIED if she'd seen her wearing them. Not that I believe Jonbenet would have worn them. My Tootsie loves to dress up but she's got nothing like Jonbenet's experience of having designer clothing and pageant clothing custom made for her. Yet Tootsie pulled faces when she saw the 12-14 Bloomies. She giggled because they were identical to her 4-6 Bloomies yet they were so big. Her remark was "They look like yours" (or words to that effect). I asked her to try them on and she thought it was a huge joke. There is no way .... NO WAY she would ever have voluntarily worn them as her underwear.

    So the 12-14 Bloomies are a big mystery.

    Excuse the RST have given are:-

    1) In my photographs of the two sizes of Blomoies, the larger ones were high-cut legs - i.e. a different style altogether. FALSE. These are a novelty/souvenir item and come in one style only - full brief. Clearly the person who thought I'd used a high-cut leg style was shocked by the degree of gaping. I was too.

    2) Sizes have changes since 1996 - they've gotten bigger. Hmmm. Maybe they've altered slightly, but I doubt they've altered that much. I bought the smaller Bloomies two years ago, the larger Bloomies this year. Have sizes altered dramatically in the last 2 years? I doubt it.

    3) Although Tootsie and JBR are virtually the same height and weight, that doesn't mean they would have the same measurements. When I did the experiment, Tootsie was exactly the same height as JBR when she died, but half a pound heavier. I have seen Photos of JBR and I know what my Tootsie looks like so I can compare easily. Some folks online have seen photos of Tootsie and I'm sure they'd agree she's a normal sized little girl. I've never had any problems getting clothes to fit - I just buy the regular size for her age and it fits. Tootsie and JonBenet look to be a very similar build but Jonbenet might be very slightly skinnier. Tootsie was certainly half a pound heavier so if anything, the Bloomies would have been even baggier on Jonbenet than on Tootsie.

    4) The larger Bloomies were stretched to make them look bigger. Eh? This was RST logic at its best. No I didn't stretch the larger Bloomies. I took them out of the pack and used them. OTOH, the smaller Bloomies had been worn numerous times and may have stretched so if I'd compared new for new, the size difference might have been even more dramatic!
  8. Amber

    Amber Member

    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear - I meant that the huge Bloomies were put on during the staging, not at bedtime...THEN as I stated earlier

    'they needed a clean pair of knickers (sorry, I'm English) that had Wednesday on them ie. 25th December. If she'd soiled her normal sized Wednesday Bloomies and her others were in the wash ( ie also solied) perhaps the size 12's - meant to be a present were the ONLY WEDNESDAY Bloomies available. We only have PR's word that JBR wanted the Big ones and JBR isn't around to argue.

    They had to be Bloomies with Wednesday, not only to reinforce the straight to bed on the 25th, but because MANY people at the White's house who could have assisted JBR in the toilet on Christmas day would know she had Bloomies/knickers with Wednesday written on they had no choice. They over-thought the cover up and made themselves look silly IMHO.'
  9. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Margoo has asked a poignant question:-

    Exactly. That's what doesn't make sense. Patsy admitted that the knew JonBenet was wearing the enormous Bloomies. If she hadn't, it would have made much more sense.
  10. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Here's a thought ... but it doesn't fit with Patsy knowing about the large knickers unless Patsy was involved in her murder. The fact that she acknowledged awareness of those huge Bloomies is a bugaboo for me.

    Supposing JonBenet's bowels voided as she was killed? I understand that it is a common occurence. Could that explain why she was changed and wiped down? Not because the killer was worried about his/her DNA, but because leaving her in her own poo was something that even her killer couldn't do?
  11. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Why do the RST refuse to acknowledge an impeccable source for the Bloomies being size 12? i.e. page 62 of Karr's arrest warrant?

    We know they read here, yet not one of them is acknowledging this source. Instead, they prefer to warble on about how there isn't an official source and suggest it's another "BORG myth". Isn't there one of them with the integrity to post this FACT on yonder forum?
  12. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    Food for thought: Patsy had some "unwrapped" presents in that cellar room, did she not? Would that include the undelivered size 12 Bloomies?

    That package of size 12 Bloomies did NOT get into the hands of the BPD. Ever. Jams claimed--at one point--that "someone" found the remaining 6 pairs "in the boxes" from the Ramsey's home. That "someone" did not then turn those over for the INVESTIGATION INTO THE MURDER OF THEIR CHILD. Even though, as Patsy HERSELF clearly states in Atlanta in 2000 August, SHE KNEW those undies were IMPORTANT EVIDENCE in this case.

    How odd.

    No, the RAMSEY "SOMEONE" KEPT CASE EVIDENCE INTENTIONALLY for YEARS. I'm sure THEIR EXCUSE is that they didn't TRUST the BPD to handle this IMPORTANT CASE EVIDENCE. No, they waited until MARY LACY took the case away from the BPD years later, compliments of LIN WOOD, and THEN Wood turned the remaining size 12 BLOOMIES over to HER. You remember Mary Lacy? PRO-RAMSEY DA who attended Patsy's FUNERAL AS A FRIEND?

    So, let's think about this:


    2. Why do you think they didn't just THROW IT OUT ANYHOW? I mean, IF they are guilty, why even TELL anyone about those Bloomies? Why not just get rid of them altogether? Of course, that's the OBVIOUS question. And I believe I have the answer: because the person who FOUND them in those "boxes" from the Ramsey home was NOT John or Patsy or Burke. Maybe it wasn't even a Ramsey. Maybe it was a FRIEND OR RELATIVE, one who actually BELIEVES the Ramseys are innocent. Maybe that FRIEND/RELATIVE followed the case and said OH LOOK! THE REMAINING BLOOMIES! You'll want to give these to LE, won't you? And the Ramseys are then STUCK. If they get RID of them, they now look guilty to this friend/relative. So...they STALL. Use the old "they're out to get us" excuse.

    3. Or one version of this story I've seen jams tell is that the size 12 Bloomies were found AT THE BOULDER HOME BY THE RAMSEY INVESTIGATORS. So, of course, if the INVESTIGATORS found this EVIDENCE, why didn't THEY turn it over to LE? Well, for one thing, THEY worked for the Ramsey lawyers. I'm sure the policy would be "not our job" to do LE's work for them. Of course, they had NO PROBLEM turning over "exculpatory evidence" as they saw it, but that's another thread. No, in this case, seems the Ramsey investigators...which would include Lou Smit de facto, if not by paycheck soon after he quit the BDA's Office...would be left holding this CRITICAL EVIDENCE. Why didn't THEY destroy it? Well, first, destroying evidence in a crime IS ILLEGAL. Any of them, not to mention Haddon's firm, could have been prosecuted for destroying evidence in a murder case. Not that this would have IS Boulder, after all...but I doubt they'd have wanted that hanging over their heads. It would have RUINED any professional career they'd spent their lives constructing, after all. So...can't destroy it, can they? Nope, but they CAN hold on to it. Then, if somehow the fact that they're WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE IN A CHILD MURDER CASE gets leaked...they can always say, oops...just an MISPLACED...blahblah. The fact that the RST was never discovered by the BPD to have this CRITICAL CASE EVIDENCE says much about "Ramsey cooperation" with LE, doesn't it?


    And people, this is why I treasure jams. Yes, I said it. I treasure her. Because even if she doesn't have the moral character to be truly honest about what she knows and how she knows it, even if she's willing to use and abuse anyone and everyone for her own agenda, even if she's incapable of telling the raw truth when it really implicates her precious Ramseys, opting instead to libel any number of innocent people, even those she drags off the internet unawares they're being sacrificed to the God Ramsey solely BECAUSE they are spite of all of this, I do treasure jams.

    Think of it: without her, we'd have no transcript of the Ramsey '98 interviews conducted by the BDA. Didn't Wood release the Ramsey Atlanta 2000 interviews through jams? The Wolf/Ramsey depositions, as well? As selective and biased as they try to make them, the truth is screaming from the Ramseys' own words: they lie, evade, obfuscate, and obstruct justice in the murder of their own child.

    And in the case of the package of size 12 Bloomies: they AGAIN obstructed the investigation by WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE until they could control how it was used. And how was it used? Not at all. How do we know this? Jams told us. Of course, she won't tell THE WHOLE TRUTH. She never does. But this little nugget her ego let slip in part really is so revealing. She didn't know this, of course. She doesn't know the law, and besides, her little heads will take it any way she wants to dish it.

    But we know the truth, and it inevitably leads to the questions that will NEVER be answered: where were those size 12 Bloomies REALLY taken from that night? And by whom?

    Clever Ramseys. They know the answers, but they'll never tell. If anyone else knows it, they might...for a price, of course.
  13. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I want to clarify some thoughts on the "missing" size 12 Bloomies and what I think happened to them for 5 years:

    Jams said herself the Ramseys OR their investigators (jams actually told BOTH stories at different times--how RAMSEY of her) FOUND the remaining package of size 12 Bloomies in "boxes" from when the Ramseys moved from the Boulder home. When jams said it was the RST INVESTIGATORS, she said the undies were found in the Boulder home after LE dismissed it back to the Ramseys, I believe. Then later, jams said "someone" found them in boxes of Ramsey belongings from the move, and I inferred from that those boxes would have been in ATLANTA when they were being unpacked. Just what jams intended for people to infer, I now believe. I don't believe jams ever cleared that up, as she plays by the Ramsey rule book, and RULE NUMBER ONE: the more confusing, the better.

    Personally, I believe the package was NOT in JonBenet's bathroom at all, because in Atlanta, the Boulder DA/BPD team interviewing Patsy said they had taken 15 pairs of size 6 undies out of JonBenet's drawer. Why would they leave any others behind? Patsy changed her story about where that package of size 12 Bloomies was in JonBenet's bathroom, as well. Why would she do that? Because she was doing what all liars do: adjusting her story to fit the facts in order to keep the lie going.

    I think Patsy got the undies out of the basement where she had them waiting to be packed and sent to her niece, along with other items she admitted she didn't get sent before Christmas. Remember the Christmas wrapping paper that can be seen in a picture of the blanket in the cellar room? Remember that Patsy said herself that she had wrapped presents down there and there were some still there? I think the remaining undies were in that basement. After a pair was taken out to put on JonBenet, I think the rest of the package was then put elsewhere: maybe hidden in another box or area of the basement, which is how they ended up FOUND by the Ramsey investigators in a box later, possibly right there in the basement. I think jams changed the story, using her now infamous method of twisting words, to try to hide the truth, when she asked for more detail and realized the implications: the undies weren't found in JonBenet's bathroom at all, but in a box in the basement--hence, "packed in a box" and "found later" by "someone." Then withheld from LE for 5 years because the investigators did NOT want to tell the BPD WHERE THEY FOUND THIS PACKAGE. Nor did they want them TESTED for DNA, in case they might come back with unknown DNA. Again...RULE NUMBER ONE: CONFUSE, OBSCURE, EVADE, OBSTRUCT. Jams lies for the Ramseys all the time. I think this is no different.

    At any rate, jams said the package was turned over to Lacy. Wood also said this, more or less. That was in 2002, when Lacy took over the case. They waited that long. I'm guessing they didn't just destroy the evidence because it wasn't Patsy or John who FOUND them in Boulder, but someone else who KNEW how important they were and knew that destroying evidence in a criminal case is a felony, not to mention a career buster, if you get caught. So it seems to me it must have been the "investigators" after all who found them in Boulder and then held on to them. It's still OBSTRUCTION, IMO, that the Ramseys withheld evidence in their own child's MURDER CASE for 5 years, especially when Patsy admitted in 2000 in Atlanta that she already KNEW there was an issue over the large undies, yet she STILL said NOTHING about having the rest of the package when LE explained IN DETAIL why it was important to know how those undies got on JonBenet and where they came from. How COOPERATIVE of the Ramseys. NOT.

    Well, that's the best I can do from all the continuing misinformation and confusion the RST create so no one will ever know the truth in full. But ever so often, some kernel slips out and you have to wade through a lot of swampwater to find it, but sometimes, you can. I think this is close to the truth.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2006
  14. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    The very fact that the tactic adopted by Margoo & co is one of doubt that my experiment is accurate just goes to underline the disbelief factor about the larger Bloomies. i.e. "My goodness, they are so huge, I simply cannot believe that JonBenet would want to wear them and I simply cannot believe that Patsy would let her wear them ... therefore Jayelles experiment must be flawed. The garment size must have changed in 10 years .... Perhaps it was a different manufacturer?...... Perhaps everyone is wrong about them being size 12-14 and they were actually size 6-10?.....".

    There is no doubt in my mind that this is a severe case of Ramsey-tinted spectacles. There is no doubt in my mind that if Patsy had simply DENIED knowledge of the large Bloomies, that they would have held this up as PROOF POSITIVE of an intruder.

    Patsy acknowledging the large Bloomies is the bugaboo.

    For the record, Margoo makes reference to my Bloomies being purchased 10 years after the murder - in fact, only one set were. The other set were purchased 3 years ago.

    Despite Margoo's continued attempts to apply Ramsey SPIN to the Bloomies, one fact remains - there are numerous documented references to the fact that the Bloomies which JonBenet were wearing were OUTSIZED and very large. At what point does one use terms like these? Not baggy, not "rather big" not even "too big" but OUTSIZED. I would say that the term outsized would be used when the garment was ridiculously large and hanging off the person.
  15. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Utter piffle posted elsewhere

    jameson posted:-

    This is piffle for several reasons:-

    1) It wasn't a BORG who made the model, it was a fencesitter.

    2) The reasoning behind it wasn't to prove that Patsy did it (I'm sorry but how idiotic is THAT statement?), but to document the FACTS. The Investigators described the Bloomies as "oversized" and the general impression was that the mere size of the Bloomies was something of a big puzzle which might be part of the crime. However, the RST were suggesting that the claim of the Bloomies being huge was a "BORG myth" and that they were probably only just a little on the generous size (after all, Patsy says she let her wear them so they couldn't POSSIBLY have been that big - must be the nasty BORG spinning things).

    3) In fact the experiment shows that the Bloomies were indeed massive. They would have been uncomfortable, hard to keep up and it's very unlikely that JonBenet would have wanted to wear them, let alone any self-respecting parent allowing their child to wear them. They remain a puzzle.

    Thinking readers should ask themselves "why" jameson is trying to dismiss the significance of the huge Bloomies. Perhaps she would be happy to dress her own children (or any of her many foster children) in outsized, uncomfortable underwear which would hang down to their knees, but really, most of us have higher standards than that.

    Yes it's possible that sizes have changed in 10 years - but that would apply to the smaller Bloomies too.

    It should be noted that the RST have also continually fluffed about there being no official source for the larger Bloomies even being a size 12-14 - they have suggested that this too is a "BORG myth". Not so. Pg 62 of John Mark Karr's arrest warrant clearly stated that they were size 12-14. Thinking people should ask themselves "why" none of the RST are achknowledging this official source and why they continue to mumble and fluff about there being no official source.

    Miss Marple runs a wiki about the case. In recent days he TWICE posted the source of pg 62 of the Karr arrest warrant in response to another posters question and TWICE jameson deleted his post. She doesn't want to acknowledge that particular fact on her site. Instead she chooses to try and discredit Miss Marple. In true jameson form, this means calling him a "BORG". Miss Marple isn't a BORG - he supports the intruder theory and as far a I am aware has done so under all of his previous hats. Now I don't agree with all of Miss Marple's theories (I think he leans too much towards RST), but I respect his ability to acknowledge facts even when they don't support his gut instinct. Fortunately, like me, Miss Marple isn't remotely upset by jameson's attempts to rile him by calling him a BORG. He's far too intelligent to think that thinking people would believe what jameson says over what they can see for themselves to be true! These petty tactics only serves to discredit jameson more because it makes her look as though she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

    The FACT is that jameson doesn't like Miss Marple because he made a wiki which documenst BOTH sides of the equation - and jameson, like Michael Tracye, prefers to represent just ONE side of the equation. In jameson's eyes, that makes him a "BORG". Sadly, there are still some members of jameson's forum who follow her blindly and take her word as gospel. If she says Miss Marple is a "BORG" then they will believe her and treat Miss Marple likewise. Some of these poor unfortunates are so brainwashed that they don't even read elsewhere. To them, jameson's propaganda contitutes the facts in the Ramsey case!

    Her reign is coming to an end though. SOme of her more intelligent posters have formed their own forum and are endeavouring to make it a decent one. They have suffered one too many of jameson's phoney "crashes" and seen for themselves that she cares not one jot about their feelings.

    These guys are WAY more intelligent than jameson and it defeats me why they posted under her control for so long. Still, better late than never.
  16. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I have debated the big Bloomies some more at the Crimelibrary forum and it seems apparent that the sheer large size of the 12-14 Bloomies is too much for some people to take. Some people simply cannot believe it and have come up with all sorts of explanations as to why my "experiment" is misleading or wrong.

    Some people cannot believe that the 4-6 Bloomies would have fitted JonBenet and have suggested that my daughter is unusually small for them to fit her. I've been told to "get real" when I said that the 4-6 Bloomies still fit my 7 year old.

    What really frustrates me is that these people are going by the label size of the underwear. They would rather ASSume that all manufacturers make to the same sizes and that the garments will fit children of that precise age.

    I am therefore going to add a few more images to this thread. I have made a small collection of childrens' underwear which varies from age 2-3 to age 9-10 and I will photograph them side by side. What you will see is that the 4-6 Bloomies are at the top end of the sizes. In fact, the 4-6 Bloomies are the same size IF NOT SLIGHTLY LARGER than the age 9-10 knickers that I bought. They are made big.

    I will take the photos in a week or so when I have time to do so and more importantly when my Hubby returns from a trip (he has the camera with him).
  17. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I've just read elsewhere that someone thinks my model is just *some* model and isn't likely to be an accurate size. Clearly, this person hasn't bothered to read the description of my experiment and on THAT basis, I'd tend to judge that probably, they don't do much reading of anything, preferring to draw their own :(:(:(-umptions.

    My daughter was the model. She was 6 and a half years old at the time and the exact same height as JonBenet was recorded at death but 1lb heavier.

    The method I used for creating the model was the same one I have used in the past to make adult dummies for theatrical props.

    She wore old clothes and I wrapped her torso and upper legs in stooky. I'm sorry, I don't know what this might be known as in the US - stuki perhaps? It's a special material which is specifically used for making theatrical masks and body parts. It gets dipped in water and then wrapped around the person,. It dries very quickly and comes off easily.

    I removed the cast from Tootsie by cutting up the sides of it. The material cuts easily when it has set. She only had to stand still for a few minutes while I did this.

    I then taped the two halves of the dummy together, filled it with padding to stop it collapsing and left it for a couple of days to harden completely.

    I then took detailed measurements of my daughter and padded the dummy even more to expand it to her precise measurements (despite my best efforts, it had actually collapsed a bit at one side). Only when the measurements were exact did I do the experiment.

    I put a leotard and tights on the dummy to give the knickers a background. The dummy was white and the knickers are white. Also, the dummy has a rough surface due to the fact that I did it quickly before Tootsie started to fidget and also, I'm much of an artist!

    The dummy got plenty of criticism and snide remarks and I hold my hand up to it's ugly appearance (one leg was longer than the other). However, I am well aware that THINKING people would see past the dummy to the fact that it was constructed to the precise measurements of a child who was approximately Jonbenet's size (we don't afterall know JonBenet's waist/hips and thigh measurements).

    Other critics have used the fact that Jonbenet's waist hip and thigh measurements are unknown to suggest that they might have been vastly differenty therefore negating the entire experiment. However, this is very unlikely. The measurements may differ by a few centimetres but it's unlikely to be more than that.

    Also - coming soon. Another point that has come up is that some people simply do not believe that Jonbenet would normally have worn a size 4-6 Bloomies and that her normal size would have been more likely the 8-10. A poster at Crimelibrary was highly dismissive of any sugestion that the size 4-6 still fit my now 7 year old daughter.

    So I bought several pairs of knickers from a variety of High Street stores and in different sizes to show how LARGE the 4-6 Bloomies are in comparison. The fact is that the Bloomies are actually bigger than size 9-10 knickers from British Home Stores.

    Watch this space.
  18. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    From time to time, someone questions the validity of my Bloomies experiment. For the record, I'd appreciate if those members here who have seen a photo of my Tootsie would mind confirming that she's an averaged sized child and not freakishly thin.

    For the record - Tootsie was my model for the Bloomies experiment and at the time of the experiment, she was exactly the same height as JBR was when she died and half a pound heavier.

  19. Cherokee

    Cherokee FFJ Senior Member

    I am more than glad to validate Jayelles has said.

    For the record, I have seen many photos of Tootsie, and she is an average-sized child of average weight for her age. Tootsie looks exactly as Jayelles has described her, and she is DEFINITELY not thin.

    Jayelles has repeatedly said does not believe the Ramseys are guilty in the death of JonBenet, and she has no reason to lie about Tootsie's height being the same as JBR's or her weight being only half a pound heavier at the time of the experiment.

    I have been hesitant to mention my own personal experience because of privacy concerns, but I can verify Jayelles' experiment in another way.

    At the age of six, my own daughter was about the same height and weight as JBR when she died. She had just graduated from size 4 girls' underwear, and wore a size 6, which was a little baggy at first. There is no way under heaven or on earth that my daughter could have (or would have) worn size 12-14 girls' underwear at that age. They would have just slid right down her legs if she'd tried to walk in them, plus they would have bunched up so badly they would have left a noticable (and uncomfortable) bump if she'd tried to wear them under clothes.

    And here's the kicker. My daughter continued to be of average build as she grew older. She only began wearing size 12 girls' underwear after she turned 12 years old, and she wore size 14 well past her 14th birthday. She exclusively wore the "Hanes Her Way" brand which is not sized any bigger than the Bloomies brand. In fact, I believe it may be slightly smaller.

    My daughter and JonBenet were only two years apart in age when JonBenet was killed, so their American underwear sizes would have been comparable. At her height and weight, JonBenet would have been wearing size 6 girls' underwear at the time of her death. The idea that JonBenet would have (or could have) worn a size 12-14 girls' underwear is not only absolutely ludicrous, it's a lie.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2007
  20. Zotto

    Zotto FFJ Senior Member

    Ditto what Chero says...not that anything we say will ever convince the RST. Tootsie is definitely as Jayelles describes. Jay is the most fair minded person I have ever met when it comes to giving people the benefit of the doubt. She is scrupulously honest. The RST would have explained away a televised confession from Patsy herself, but as Chero says...Jay has no reason to lie.

    The very fact that she went to so much trouble to even make the model should show the doubters how dedicated to the truth she is and how much she cares about accuracy.
  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