The oversized Bloomingdale’s panties.

[BBB167893]

Ramnesia was a disease they got as a gift from their lawyers. Because their defense team delayed the actual interviews for such a long time, the Rs could quite easily answer that they didn't remember.

I've said it a million times: the police were not outsmarted; they were out-lawyered.

 

[cynic]

Sunnie...don't waste your time anymore. I have said this over and over and over again, only to be ignored or asked to provide YET ANOTHER link or source that will also be discounted. IDI's try to muddy the waters...so to speak. Trying to take the focus off of anything and everything that is evidence of RDI. I am sure (pretty sure) that MF and Holdon are smart enough to realize that what we have posted ARE FACTS...and correct sources. MY GOSH...theres Patsy's interview...AND Pictures...what they heck more do they need?? Nothing more....IMO. They have their facts and their sources...thanks to all of us...they just choose to ignore them. WE know the truth....

It is amazing to see the lengths that some will go to.
As I said in my first post, Jenny and Jonbenet were in no way similar in size and those that have tried the same experiment that Jayelles did, of placing size 12 underwear on a six year old, know that it results in a ridiculous spectacle.
“Jenny would have stood at least 10 inches taller that JBR, weighed at least 40 pounds more and have hips that were about 6 inches larger.
These are very significant differences and it’s clear that clothing of any sort for one would be clearly inappropriate for the other.”

http://www.usatourist.com/english/traveltips/shopping/shopping-childrens-sizes.html

This is the tag from the Bloomingdale’s “Days of the Week” underwear:

Below is an approximation of the difference in size between a 6 and 12 year old:

 

[cynic]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation in this case. The interviews (which I don't imagine LE would have ever thought would become public) are taken literally by some folks, whereas I believe that there are several instances where they have attempted to 'bait' their suspects with false/misleading information. This is a usual interview tactic in order to encourage them to incriminate themselves.

So, RDI believes what the interviewer asks is fact, and they also base their theory (to a greater or lesser extent) on this. Questioning whether such things are correct or not gives me a greater understanding of what I can discount as 'hearsay' and what might be 'truth'. When I can see contradictions between what LE has said and what I know to be true, then I ask for further confirmation from the forum. In this case, there is none, and I therefore conclude LE was telling porkies.

You seem to feel that the interviewers were “baiting” PR with lies, but there is no evidence of this.
They asked about size 12/14 underwear and PR admitted to buying size 12/14 underwear.
There was definitely lying going on during the interview, but it wasn’t from the interviewers, it was from the interviewee.
This underwear would have been clearly inappropriate and oversized for JBR.
As I said in my first post, if you don’t believe the underwear would have been as large as depicted in Jayelles’ experiment, then buy size 12 and size 14 underwear and compare it to a size 4 or 6 for yourself. I urge caution, though; you may not hold your IDI beliefs when you’re done.
My experiment confirmed what Jayelles depicted.

 

[cynic]

Re IDI-I have some ideas re why she was redressed and why the smaller panties are missing.
Am more interested now in RDI and the bloomies now.
So if I got it right,she was probably wearing a small (normal for her age and size) pair when something happened.Why was it so important though ,seems that changing her panties played a big part in the alledged staging,right?Why did they spend so much time with cleaning her and changing her clothes.Not the shirt(or maybe the shirt too if we believe ST when he says PR claimed she was wearing the red turtleneck when put to bed),but the panties.Not the long johns.
WHY ARE THE SMALL PANTIES MISSING if RDI.Means that what happened to her,what caused her death has something to do with her being hurt down there.I guess the missing panties,the redressing,the cleaning play a huge part in this case and brings us closer to what and why it happened.
IF PR bothered to write such a note that means something huge needed to be covered up.And again,PR writing the note (IF true) makes me believe it was NOT her that killed JB but one of the other two present in the house.
So IMO the crime IS sex-related (the missing panties,the redressing,cleaning the body) and then we have a mother covering for someone else and still wanting her baby to be comfortable(?maybe not the right word,but)... (blanket,clean clothes) even after death.

Again,why so much confusion re the big bloomies,why bother to make the small ones dissapear,why clean her body (requires a lot of time) if it was just an accident/head bash.
Nope,IMO everything started with JB being hurt down there.....

@BBM
Cleaning, redressing, covering etc. are what profilers have referred to as “undoing.”
The person involved in doing these things is trying to cope with the guilt by trying to undo the death

 

[cynic]

Okay, I was curious this weekend. I have two daughters. One wears a size 6 panties and the other wears a 12/14. I had the younger daughter try on her older sister's panties. They fell off her hips. Ignoring the other inconsistencies, there's no way JB put these on herself unless she was joking around.

Of course, larger panties make it easier to re-dress a body

I did that same test (LOL) did you laugh as hard as I did?????? I laughed until I cried...

That is exactly what the poster Jayelles over at Forums for Justice found.
I want to take this opportunity to, once again, thank her for all the impressive work she did.
Here are a few excerpts from a post outlining her daughter’s reaction (from post #48
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=7107&page=4 )

my daughter laughed when I showed her the BIG KNICKERS for the first time. I called her into my study and held out one pair to watch her reaction. She looked at them and started giggling
…
When I asked her to try them on she found it hilarious - a big joke. I can assure you that there is no way she would wear them. They look ridiculous and would be extremely uncomfortable.
…
It was important to me to watch my daughter's reactions carefully on this because she's the same age, height and weight as Jonbenet was when she died and I knew I wouldn't get another opportunity to try this experiment out with any degree of validity.

 

[cynic]

The panties are an issue for several reasons. First, they were LIED about. No reason for innocent people to lie. Also, your comment about not wanting her to be found in clean new underwear means that whoever changed her by the very nature of the act had knowledge of her DEATH. And NO intruder, SFF, or anyone NOT a parent would care whether her panties were clean or not.
This isn't about Patsy's housekeeping or tidiness. Police searched the house, not just JB's drawer. They were not in the drawer. We know Patsy DID intend to use them as a gift. And maybe she didn't. But if she didn't, they'd have been where she said they were. In the drawer.

A very good summary of why this issue is important, she lied to law enforcement, and the IDI camp wonders why police continued to suspect the Ramseys???

 

[cynic]

So, that leaves the real question of why did she lie?

PR was trying desperately to make it seem that JBR would wear these panties and that there never was a “redressing,” which would point to parental involvement rather than an intruder.
I suppose the issue is not why she was lying, but why the oversized panties ended up on the body of JBR. Even more curious, why specifically an oversized “Wednesday” pair of size 12/14 panties as opposed to an appropriately sized pair, or leaving her undressed altogether?
An intruder would have no interest in cleaning up JBR, putting a clean pair of panties on her, pulling her long johns back up and finally making sure she’s nice and cozy by wrapping her up in a blanket.
None of this points to IDI, it points to RDI.
From an RDI perspective, the question still remains as to why specifically she was redressed in the oversized “Wednesday” Bloomies.
It may be because they were trying to limit their movements in the house and these panties were accessible in a nearby Christmas present.
If JBR owned a pair of appropriately sized (4/6) Bloomies and was dressed in those earlier in the day, another possibility presents itself.
It may be that there was concern that someone at the Whites may have helped JBR wipe in the washroom and consequently let the investigators know at some point that she was wearing panties that had “Wednesday” on the waistband.
Therefore, in order to preserve the story that JonBenet fell asleep in the car and remained asleep, it would be necessary to put another pair of “Wednesday” panties on her body, and the only possibility would be the oversized Bloomies.

 

[UKGuy]

PR was trying desperately to make it seem that JBR would wear these panties and that there never was a “redressing,” which would point to parental involvement rather than an intruder.
I suppose the issue is not why she was lying, but why the oversized panties ended up on the body of JBR. Even more curious, why specifically an oversized “Wednesday” pair of size 12/14 panties as opposed to an appropriately sized pair, or leaving her undressed altogether?
An intruder would have no interest in cleaning up JBR, putting a clean pair of panties on her, pulling her long johns back up and finally making sure she’s nice and cozy by wrapping her up in a blanket.
None of this points to IDI, it points to RDI.
From an RDI perspective, the question still remains as to why specifically she was redressed in the oversized “Wednesday” Bloomies.
It may be because they were trying to limit their movements in the house and these panties were accessible in a nearby Christmas present.
If JBR owned a pair of appropriately sized (4/6) Bloomies and was dressed in those earlier in the day, another possibility presents itself.
It may be that there was concern that someone at the Whites may have helped JBR wipe in the washroom and consequently let the investigators know at some point that she was wearing panties that had “Wednesday” on the waistband.
Therefore, in order to preserve the story that JonBenet fell asleep in the car and remained asleep, it would be necessary to put another pair of “Wednesday” panties on her body, and the only possibility would be the oversized Bloomies.

cynic,
Whilst possible. I used to support this view but consider it marginal now. Particularly if you take account of Jayelles view as referenced by yourself. e.g. The alleged witness at the Whites would not only be able to corroborate Day Of The Week but also that of size. Would the witness remember giggling?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

In one of Patsy's interviews, LE are mentioning that ALL JB's panties had fecal staining. Every single pair. Yet the panties she was found in did not. A pretty good indication they were never worn before. Nor were the rest of the set (the remaining 6 pairs) ever found in the home, either in JB's drawer (where Patsy said they were) or in the laundry or on the floor. NO day of the week panties of ANY size.
The police were insinuating this very thing when they mentioned that to Patsy. But they never just came out and SAID it. But I think she knew exactly what they were getting at.

 

[cynic]

cynic,
Whilst possible. I used to support this view but consider it marginal now. Particularly if you take account of Jayelles view as referenced by yourself. e.g. The alleged witness at the Whites would not only be able to corroborate Day Of The Week but also that of size. Would the witness remember giggling?


.

I understand your point UK, however, from a Ramsey perspective, they may have hoped that the size might be overlooked whereas the very obvious "Wednesday" would not.

 

[UKGuy]

In one of Patsy's interviews, LE are mentioning that ALL JB's panties had fecal staining. Every single pair. Yet the panties she was found in did not. A pretty good indication they were never worn before. Nor were the rest of the set (the remaining 6 pairs) ever found in the home, either in JB's drawer (where Patsy said they were) or in the laundry or on the floor. NO day of the week panties of ANY size.
The police were insinuating this very thing when they mentioned that to Patsy. But they never just came out and SAID it. But I think she knew exactly what they were getting at.

DeeDee249,

You reckon so, none at all?

.

 

[UKGuy]

I understand your point UK, however, from a Ramsey perspective, they may have hoped that the size might be overlooked whereas the very obvious "Wednesday" would not.

cynic,
You may be correct. Its funny how irrational the criminal mind can be at times. Yet the probability looks small e.g. it requires no wednesday day of the week in JonBenet's drawer and the knowledge that someone assisted JonBenet in the toilet at the Whites.

I would be willing to bet that Patsy purchased size 4-6 Day Of The Week Bloomingdales for JonBenet when she said she did.

Consider if this is false then Patsy is caught stating two inconsistent sentences regarding differing sizes of Bloomingdales, one of which vanishes to return later and the other never to return.

So there should be at least one pair of Wedesday Bloomingdales in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

Why were these not placed upon JonBenet? Patsy could have slected them at the same time she chose the longjohns.

I reckon its because it was not Patsy who redressed JonBenet in those size-12's.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

You reckon so, none at all?

.

NONE at all.

Then- 5 years later- what was said to be the remaining 6 pairs of the Bloomies set was sent to LE by the Rs lawyer. I have never seen if these panties were ever tested to see if they matched the ones found on JB. Bloomies does change their patterns and prints from time to time.

 

[UKGuy]

NONE at all.

Then- 5 years later- what was said to be the remaining 6 pairs of the Bloomies set was sent to LE by the Rs lawyer. I have never seen if these panties were ever tested to see if they matched the ones found on JB. Bloomies does change their patterns and prints from time to time.

DeeDee249,

Yes I agree wrt size-12's, possibly I misunderstood you.

You did say:

NO day of the week panties of ANY size.

Yet BPD only stated:

11 Q. And I will just state a fact
12 here. I mean, there were 15 pair of panties
13 taken out of, by the police, out of
14 JonBenet's panty drawer in her bathroom. Is
15 that where she kept -
16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative).
17 Q. -- where you were describing that
18 they were just put in that drawer?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And every one of those was
21 either a size four or a size six. Okay?
22 Would that have been about the size pair of
23 panties that she wore when she was six years
24 old?

Nothing about day of the week.


.

 

[cynic]

cynic,
You may be correct. Its funny how irrational the criminal mind can be at times.

I remember commenting on a post with respect to the length of the ransom note. My comment was that while you or I may not have done it that way, it comes down to state of mind.
If the author felt it necessary to have all of those elements in the note, then that’s why they were there.
In this case, if the state of mind was such that it was important having “Wednesday” on the waistband of the panties that JonBenet was redressed in, then that’s why it was done.
While the specifics of the thought process may elude us, it made perfect sense at that time, in that situation for that person.

Yet the probability looks small e.g. it requires no wednesday day of the week in JonBenet's drawer and the knowledge that someone assisted JonBenet in the toilet at the Whites.

I would be willing to bet that Patsy purchased size 4-6 Day Of The Week Bloomingdales for JonBenet when she said she did.

Consider if this is false then Patsy is caught stating two inconsistent sentences regarding differing sizes of Bloomingdales, one of which vanishes to return later and the other never to return.

Here’s my theory:
Patsy bought two sets of Bloomies, one for Jonbenet in an appropriate size (4/6) and one for Jenny in a size 12/14. I acknowledge that while this is supported by statements in PR’s interview, her vague answers, which were allowed to stand, preclude anyone from being certain.
I believe that PR wrapped the size 12/14 Bloomies, possibly along with other items, as a Christmas present for Jenny.
I believe that PR placed the size 4/6 Bloomies in JonBenet’s panty drawer.
JBR may have been using various “days” from this set prior to Dec 25th.
I believe that she was wearing the Wednesday pair from the set on Dec 25th, and would have had those on at the Whites.
When the choice was made to redress JonBenet, the fear in the mind of the “redresser” was that if someone helped JBR in the washroom, they may have noticed the distinctive, “Wednesday,” on the waistband. (It wouldn’t matter if the “redresser” knew for certain, if they merely had a suspicion, it may have been enough – that nagging doubt.)
The decision at that point is whether to go with appropriately sized panties that don’t have Wednesday on the waistband, or to choose oversized panties that have Wednesday on the waistband and match the floral pattern as well.
As I said earlier, this gets into state of mind, and while we might not have made that choice, it’s not that unreasonable. Either option has its pros and cons.

So there should be at least one pair of Wedesday Bloomingdales in JonBenet's underwear drawer.

Why were these not placed upon JonBenet? Patsy could have slected them at the same time she chose the longjohns.

There wouldn’t be a pair of Wednesday Bloomies if JBR was wearing them earlier in the day, size 4/6, that is.
There would only be a pair available if PR purchased two sets of size 4/6 “Days of the Week” Bloomies for JBR.

 

[Toltec]

We don't know if any of the size 4 or 6 panties were day of the week. Patsy told LE that JonBenet wore size 8 which was a bold-face lie because NO SIZE 8 panties were found.

JonBenet was slight and she wore appropriate panty size for her age...6. It is normal to have old underwear in drawers (size 4) but absolutely no size 8.

Size 4 for a normal 4yo

Size 6 for a normal 6yo

Size 8 for a normal 8yo.

The Ramseys turned over the remaining size 12 day of the week panties...why didn't LE find them?

 

[SunnieRN]

Ramnesia was a disease they got as a gift from their lawyers. Because their defense team delayed the actual interviews for such a long time, the Rs could quite easily answer that they didn't remember.

What I find strange about 'Ramnesia', is the fact that this was the most horrific event this family had gone through. It's hard to forget, even the little things about this type of event.

My cousin was killed in a motorcycle accident, when I was seven. I still remember details about the circumstances. I was only seven and I remember.

Very strange reactions by the family.

 

[UKGuy]

I remember commenting on a post with respect to the length of the ransom note. My comment was that while you or I may not have done it that way, it comes down to state of mind.
If the author felt it necessary to have all of those elements in the note, then that’s why they were there.
In this case, if the state of mind was such that it was important having “Wednesday” on the waistband of the panties that JonBenet was redressed in, then that’s why it was done.
While the specifics of the thought process may elude us, it made perfect sense at that time, in that situation for that person.
Here’s my theory:
Patsy bought two sets of Bloomies, one for Jonbenet in an appropriate size (4/6) and one for Jenny in a size 12/14. I acknowledge that while this is supported by statements in PR’s interview, her vague answers, which were allowed to stand, preclude anyone from being certain.
I believe that PR wrapped the size 12/14 Bloomies, possibly along with other items, as a Christmas present for Jenny.
I believe that PR placed the size 4/6 Bloomies in JonBenet’s panty drawer.
JBR may have been using various “days” from this set prior to Dec 25th.
I believe that she was wearing the Wednesday pair from the set on Dec 25th, and would have had those on at the Whites.
When the choice was made to redress JonBenet, the fear in the mind of the “redresser” was that if someone helped JBR in the washroom, they may have noticed the distinctive, “Wednesday,” on the waistband. (It wouldn’t matter if the “redresser” knew for certain, if they merely had a suspicion, it may have been enough – that nagging doubt.)
The decision at that point is whether to go with appropriately sized panties that don’t have Wednesday on the waistband, or to choose oversized panties that have Wednesday on the waistband and match the floral pattern as well.
As I said earlier, this gets into state of mind, and while we might not have made that choice, it’s not that unreasonable. Either option has its pros and cons.
There wouldn’t be a pair of Wednesday Bloomies if JBR was wearing them earlier in the day, size 4/6, that is.
There would only be a pair available if PR purchased two sets of size 4/6 “Days of the Week” Bloomies for JBR.

cynic,

Well you might just be right. e.g. It was some kind of pragmatic response to arranging JonBenet postmortem so to suit the redressers agenda.

It would look and feel like that if the underwear were not so oversized. Another take on this is that the motive for the size-12's is to make sure she was wearing Wednesday underwear so to suggest she died on that day?

What we do not know is how many Wednesday day of the week pants were in her underwear drawer e.g. only one pair because she was already wearing a pair?

Now if day of the week had been important to Patsy why would she say JonBenet never bothered with matching days etc?
Patsy's 1998 BPD Interview Excerpt

16 THOMAS HANEY: Did JonBenet have

17 panties with the names of each day of the week

18 on it?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

20 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. And did she

21 wear those according to the day of the week or

22 was it just kind of --

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Just whatever.

24 THOMAS HANEY: Did she know, pay

25 much attention to what day of the week it was?

0237

1 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

2 THOMAS HANEY: So whatever would

3 come out of the drawer?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).

So according to Patsy we have no basis for assuming that JonBenet should be wearing Wednesday underwear the night of her death.

Maybe she was wearing a Tuesday pair and the Wednesday pair is sitting in an evidence box, along with the other 14 pairs, marked sealed.

That is:

There wouldn’t be a pair of Wednesday Bloomies if JBR was wearing them earlier in the day, size 4/6, that is.
There would only be a pair available if PR purchased two sets of size 4/6 “Days of the Week” Bloomies for JBR.

And this we do not know, not even partially. She may have been wearing tights and no underwear to the Whites?

I think applying occam or kiss that someone other than Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and that the Wednesday feature just comes along with the size-12's. Had Monday size-12's been selected they would have done the job also. Its possible that the redresser simply wanted JonBenet to be wearing underwear any underwear as long as it was clean etc.

This redressing was done to hide her sexual assault, not permanently, but in an attempt to deceive.


.

 

[UKGuy]

We don't know if any of the size 4 or 6 panties were day of the week. Patsy told LE that JonBenet wore size 8 which was a bold-face lie because NO SIZE 8 panties were found.

JonBenet was slight and she wore appropriate panty size for her age...6. It is normal to have old underwear in drawers (size 4) but absolutely no size 8.

Size 4 for a normal 4yo

Size 6 for a normal 6yo

Size 8 for a normal 8yo.

The Ramseys turned over the remaining size 12 day of the week panties...why didn't LE find them?

Toltec,

Patsy's 1998 BPD Interview Excerpt

16 THOMAS HANEY: Did JonBenet have

17 panties with the names of each day of the week

18 on it?

19 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-hum.

20 THOMAS HANEY: Okay. And did she

21 wear those according to the day of the week or

22 was it just kind of --

23 PATSY RAMSEY: Just whatever.

24 THOMAS HANEY: Did she know, pay

25 much attention to what day of the week it was?

0237

1 PATSY RAMSEY: No.

2 THOMAS HANEY: So whatever would

3 come out of the drawer?

4 PATSY RAMSEY: (Nodding).

At different points in her interview Patsy states that JonBenet did indeed possess Day-of-the-Week underwear.

Patsy was making it up as she went along, otherwise she would never have stated that she personally placed Jenny's size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

There must have been Day-of-the-Week underwear in her drawer otherwise their absence would have been added to BPD revelation regarding only size-6 underwear being in her drawer.

Its evident that Patsy was lying for someone else otherwise she would have had a story ready to match, at a minimum, the critical features, e.g. origin of the size-12's.

.

 

[cynic]

I think applying occam or kiss that someone other than Patsy redressed JonBenet in those size-12's, and that the Wednesday feature just comes along with the size-12's. Had Monday size-12's been selected they would have done the job also. Its possible that the redresser simply wanted JonBenet to be wearing underwear any underwear as long as it was clean etc.

Well UK, you may be right also, unfortunately we are stuck with statements from a suspect that lied on a number of occasions and certainly did so with respect to how the oversized panties came to be on JBR.
Framing a cohesive theory is difficult when you are unsure of when Patsy might have actually been telling the truth, as opposed to lies, and Ramnesia.