The Significance Of The Big Bloomies...

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

  1. Kangatruth

    Kangatruth Member

    i think its very easy to give too much credit to the cleverness of the crime etc.

    the covreup has been remarkably effective since..but the murder itself was very much a think it up as you go....... so the grab for the nearest 'idea' would indeed make a lot of sense..

    possibly a quick." can we make this look like an outsider....the bloomies...the bloomies!! ".. "'oh **** !!! ""...and then the great masquerade comes into play
  2. I just don't think she was concerned about JB's beauty queen reputation at that point, she probably wasn't thinking about JB much at all - she was trying to think of something to save her own skin.

    It would've been much easier to stage it as an accident and say "She was in the bathroom and slipped and fell"... it would be very difficult to prove otherwise. But she decided to stage it as a murder with a deliberately sinister feel... she regarded it as a crime, because thats what it was. What I'm trying to say is: had it been an accident (which would mean she was in fact innocent), she would've screamed it from the rooftops but instead she put on a show for the cops and then hid behind her lawyers - that tells me that she not only felt guilty, she felt clearly unremorseful - and that just screams cold-blooded killer, not caring mom who had an unfortunate accident.

    Like I said, I know she was a shallow person, but I don't think the poop issue was her primary concern and motive in covering it up. I still believe the main motive was self-preservation, not an obsession with concealing her daughter's "accidents". As for questions being asked and the police coming over, I don't think she was too afraid of that - after all, she was a wealthy powerful woman in that comunity with lots of connections - surely people would believe her if she said it was an accident. JMO

    I dunno, Patsy was pretty creative, I'm sure she could've cooked up a story to back it up as an accident, couldn't have been much more ridiculous than her kidnapper story.

    To be fair, she could've said the same thing by staging it as an accident - "I left the room for 2 seconds and when i came back she had fallen... wa wa woe is me...". She could've insisted that she didn't see or know anything, and that would be it.
  3. Rai

    Rai Member

    Wow - some great thoughts have been added over the last few days! I read the forum just about every day, but finding time to log in and actually form a cohesive post ... well, that's a bigger challenge!

    Here are some general thoughts I've had while reading through the thread again:

    Totally agree with this.
    I totally agree with this, too. I don't think the push/hit was accidental, it was done on purpose, but without intent to seriously injure JonBenet, and certainly without intent to kill her. To me, that's the distinction: not accidental, but having unintended results. I don't think the cover-up was to keep the world from knowing anything except that JonBenet died at Patsy's hands, in a moment of anger.

    I agree with that and take it even further, thinking we also give way too much credit to the cleverness of the cover up! I envision this night as a hectic, stressful time for Patsy, who lost control for just a moment, panicked, and then reacted instinctively to save herself. I personally don't think she rationally thought out the whole underwear issue because explaining the over-sized Wednesdays is no easier than explaining correct-size Thursdays (or any other pair she may have chosen).

    Farther back in the thread, I read this:

    I don't think JBR went to bed at all that night, but I can't justify that opinion with any concrete facts. BUT...I find Tril's theory highly logical, except I'd replace the word "molestation" with "cleansing", so it would read this way:

    JonBenet got ready for bed Christmas night and put on pull-ups, and then put the big bloomies on over the pull-ups - which were then removed at the time of the cleansing. (I don't believe the vaginal abrasions were part of the staging, but were the result of the cleansing.)

    So we have JBR coming home, going upstairs, and getting ready for bed. She asks (again!) if she can open the Bloomies and an exasperated Patsy (tired of being bugged about them) says ok. On go the pull-up, the Bloomies and the long johns. Dad and big brother go to bed, and JBR plays in her room, then goes downstairs, finds Burke's leftover bowl of pineapple and helps herself. Enter Patsy who realizes JBR has soiled herself. (*See one more note below about encopresis.) It's already late at night after a long busy day, Patsy's trying to pack and rinse out clothes and get pageant outfits ready, etc., and now she has to drop everything for the traumatic job of cleaning JBR. PR looses her temper, and thinks that maybe a particularly rough washing will be the lesson JBR needs so she'll stop doing this. She lowers the long johns and BBs, removes the pullups and gives JBR the washing of her life, leaving the vaginal abrasions and the bruise on the inner thigh, and even causing the bleeding. As JBR struggles, the fall/push/hit occurs. Patsy finishes cleaning, pulls up the BBs and the long johns, then realizes JBR is not waking up or snapping back, that she's seriously hurt. She spends a few minutes trying to revive her, then assumes the worst and goes into panic/self preservation mode.

    She can't wake JB because she doesn't want him to know/see what she's done (not just the push/hit but also the brutal cleaning), so the only "out" she sees is to point blame somewhere else. At or just after death, JBR's bladder releases, so now the BBs and the long johns are urine stained (but not necessarily soaked).

    In this scenerio, the only "staging" of the body that would have had to be done would be (1) wrapping the blanket around JBR to keep urine from getting on Patsy - or maybe JBR had laid down on the blanket for the cleaning; (2) moving JBR's body to the basement and (3) adding the ligatures. There's no deep thought about bloomies and fibers - only the need to "make this look like a murder". She cleans up the bathroom and, lastly, writes the ransom note.

    That seems more realistic to me than thinking a panicked mother went through the whole process of cleaning, abusing and dressing the body after an accidental fall, an accidental push from her brother or (hardest for me to believe) hitting her with a blow meant for JR during molestation.
  4. Kangatruth

    Kangatruth Member

    Rai..intersting scenario...and most probably the truth isnt too far removed....

    but ( Columbo style !! lol )

    if JB had already put on the larger sized bloomies..and kids can be that to put on 'big' stuff...coz they are getting bigger ( older etc ).. if this happened...there'd be more forensics i would think on those bloomies... which from what im gathering doesn t quite tie up ( which is in inself a conundrum of sorts )

    I'll ned to go check the report on these again..

    interesting thoughts though
  5. Rai

    Rai Member

    Oops - forgot the statement I was going to add about encopresis. From an on-line article by Warren P. Silberstein, M.D:

    ... children who soil themselves often insist that they didn't feel it come out. They act like they don't even know they have a mess in their pants. They don't smell it. They don't feel it. They're oblivious to it. How can a child not feel it or smell it when he sits in a mess in his pants?!? The answer is simple - denial. Denial is one of the most potent of human ego defense mechanisms. If he believes that he can't feel it and he can't smell it, then he doesn't have to deal with the problem.

    And finally... thanks for welcoming me to FFJ!
  6. I totally agree with the abrasions being the result of harsh cleaning. There is another possible explanation for the big bloomies though: JB soiled the small ones which were prompltly removed, the murder happens and the oversized bloomers are put on as part of the staging to be consistent with the story that she went to bed immediately upon arrival at the house, eliminating the need to mention the bath or put too much focus on the bathroom. (?) just a suggestion.

    For this to be true, we have to assume that the bloomies were laying around where JB could see them, in plain sight, otherwise she probably would not have remembered to ask for them. BUT - if that was the case, Patsy would not have lied about them!

    I totally agree. I have never thought the prudish, sexually repressed Rams were into molestation - heck, i don't think they had an ounce of hot-blooded sexual lust in their bodies. Makes more sense to me that the abrasions were the result of overzealous cleaning rather than sexual abuse.

  7. Kangatruth

    Kangatruth Member

    another cause for soiling without realising it in kids is Hirschbrungs Disease.

    they just dont know!! unfortunately
  8. heymom

    heymom Member

    This is from one of the articles that was linked to earlier in the thread:

    When children experience constant constipation, the stool can become large, hard, and dry. This creates a lot of pain that causes young children to avoid going to the toilet, creating more pain and difficulties. Over time, if the colon (large intestine) and rectum become stretched, the muscles and nerves will not signal the need to have a bowel movement. This leads to stool accidents.

    (This is Heymom now) Also, if the child is withholding his or her stools because the parent is too wrapped up in toilet training, there can be small amounts of leakage anyway. So kids really can be unaware that they are going to void.

    And I hate to say it, but anal abuse can also cause this to happen. It may not be true in this case, but if a child has been abused in that way, they may loose control of their bowels for several reasons (it might keep the abuser away; their body is damaged; they are severely stressed).

  9. Carol

    Carol Member

    heymom, you said that you wished LE could get a hold of the Ramsey phone records from the early morning hours of 12/26. Why can't LE get these phone records?
  10. Elle

    Elle Member

  11. Elle,

    So what you are basically saying is that there is no other explanation for the vaginal injuries other than sexual abuse?

    I'm going to have to side with Sue on this one. The experts' opinions are perfectly consistent with overzealous cleaning and/or use of a douche. There is no absolute proof that the abuse was overtly sexual in nature and there is nothing to suggest (IMHO) that anyone in thr Ramsey home fit the pedophile profile - no previous incedents, no kiddie porn, none were abused as children (as far as I know)... etc.

    Lets not forget that if JR was truly a child molestor (as some would claim) he would've been much more eager to involve himself in the pageants thus gaining access to more children, but it seems like he wasn't very interested in it at all.
  12. heymom

    heymom Member

    Maybe they could have early on, but one of the members here said that there is a lock on them from the White House. Spade told us that in the JBR Lawyered thread.

  13. Rai

    Rai Member

    I would consider using a douching tube on a 6 year old physical abuse, and it could definitely cause vaginal trauma. That's not the same as saying the infections were caused by urination or masturbation issues. My theory possible toileting issues could have caused the abusive douching/cleansing abuse, and the abusive douching/cleansing caused the vaginal trauma and possibly the vaginal infections.

    The intent wasn't the sexual gratification of the abuser, but it was still sexual abuse. (Just like rape with an object instead of a penis is still rape.)

    **I hope I'm addressing the point you're making, elle. If not, please feel free to correct me!
  14. Rai

    Rai Member

    ^ Or in other words.... what Ploppy said!

    Sorry to repeat what you just said, Ploppy - your post wasn't showing when I started my reply!
  15. No worries man :winko:
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    I'm not saying anything PS! I am posting what Steve Thomas had to say as another opinion.

    I personally never classified John Ramsey in the role of incest with JonBenét. I have posted this many times. I think John Ramsey was in a position as a CEO to come in contact with quite a few women, and think he was more apt to go for a full grown woman for sexual satisfaction, not his six year old daughter.

    His past history when he was married to Lucinda proved that. He was with Jodie Roberts for two years, before Patsy ever came on the scene.

    I don't know what the true answer is here. Like everyone else, I'm still looking for answers, but every angle has to be covered. It troubles me to read what the pediatric experts have to say. How on earth can we ordinary people decide on something like this? The very thought of it being incest makes my stomach turn, but it happens all the time from what we hear. Not one of us know, you or Sue, what really happened to this little girl. We can just assume.
  17. Elle

    Elle Member


    As I just pointed out to PS, This is Steve Thomas' account of pediatric experts, not mine.

    I have never thought of John Ramsey being in the role of sexually molesting JonBenét. I quite believe Patsy Ramsey treated little JonBenét very roughly as punishment. This I do believe! I will admit to being very startled when I read that JonBenét's vagina was enlarged for a six year old. I would liked to have read more on this. However, her body was flown to Atlanta by the Ramseys, as fast as they could take it away, with later talk of exhumation
    discouraged by John Ramsey, with the statement to the TV Media that JonBenét was now at peace.
  18. I think I misunderstood your post Elle, sorry. I assumed the quote you posted was your own personal opinion.

    I think you're right when you say that JR was much more likely to be interested in adult women, as he sure wasn't getting any from Patsy.

    I am not disputing the findings of the pediatricians at all, I am actually validating them, but the truth is there are multiple explanations for those specific injuries. We cannot, as you rightly pointed out, know for certain what happened, all we can do is speculate and assume because there simply isn't enough evidence on the subject to draw a definite conclusion. I do think, however that inicially the media played up the incest/molestation angle to sensationalize the case and bring in a bigger audience.

    The truth of the matter is that sometimes parents do the damndest things to their kids, and that there may be a relatively innocent reason for those abrasions - but we as a society always assume the worst.

    I once knew a woman who forced her daughters to take exhausting ballet lessons everyday and put on pageant-like ballet shows on school nights. She used to pull the girls' hair into tight buns and they were always complaining about having terrible headaches... this woman wasn't trying to abuse the children, BUT thats what it ended up looking like.

    Just a thought.
  19. Carol

    Carol Member

    The WHITE HOUSE?? Thanks, heymom. I'll have to read that thread.
  20. Elle

    Elle Member

    That's okay, PS. I did have the heading at the top:

    Steve Thomas HB "JonBenét" - page 227 (Courtesy of Little FFJ)

    This is Little, who posts here, and is very knowledgeable about the JonBenét case. She saves me a lot of work from typing from Steve's book, and scans
    a page for me. :) This way, it's good confirmation for the FFJ posters. It's coming from the detective who worked the actual case, not like Lawrence Schiller, who was just an author researching the case, although a lot of information in his book was taken from Steve Thomas' police reports, handed over by ex D.A. Alex Hunter.

    Yes, I agree with you, there are other explanations for the abrasions, and it's very frustrating that we cannot find out more about this very delicate subject. Ron Walker (FBI) was the one who said in a TV interview that parents can do almost anything to children, and more!. The Grand Jury
    set the Ramseys free because they didn't think parents could do that to JonBenét.

    I think the staging was done after JonBenét was dead. I'm hoping the poor little mite was (?). It sure is very disturbing.
  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